Album cover - Fanning - SoE

[david]

I am also concerned for Larry's son as well as Larry. He seems like a great guy who is protective of his family's privacy. I don't know if they realize what can of worms they may be opening up internationallly and at home with a photo such as this. I am surprised that Larry would allow his son to possibly to be set up for problems because of this. I wonder if its still not too late for them to change it. If not I hope that it turns out ok..

Larry's son will be okay.

 

[BVS]

it isnt really larry hugging a child is it.

Yes, it is.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I think people's interpretations of this cover say more about them.

 

[anticipation33]

This quite possibly the queerest overreaction I've ever seen...

Your probably right about my overreaction Moser. Maybe since I have to work these cases every day I see it through overly focused lenses than normal. Thanks for the jolt of reality. Cheers man..

 

[Hewson]

I think people's interpretations of this cover say more about them.

I think its 2 guys going out for pizza.

 

[Niceman]

it isnt really larry hugging a child is it.

Yes, it is.

A bearded child?

 

[Niceman]

Your probably right about my overreaction Moser. Maybe since I have to work these cases every day I see it through overly focused lenses than normal. Thanks for the jolt of reality. Cheers man..

When you're holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[Aygo]

I think people's interpretations of this cover say more about them.

This.
I can see all sorts of moralisms and inner issues all over the place.

 

[BVS]

A bearded child?

I haven't seen a high quality version to see if there is a beard or not. But I guarantee you my parents still considered me their child even after facial hair.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Zimmy1987]

I don't think anyone will care. No one cared about NLOTH. People only cared now because they got an album on their phone they didn't want. The cover could feature cock and bollocks and still no one would care because it is U2. If Lady Gaga released this cover, it would be genius.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Nick66]

I can see all sorts of moralisms and inner issues all over the place.

This is one of the most tired and repeated cliches out there...i.e. if people see the image as sexualising a child, the problem is theirs and they have "issues". It's something people repeat without thought, but doesn't bear scrutiny.

If someone has a problem with imagery that appears, in their eyes, to sexualise a child, it's not "moralism". It may be an indicator of what a sad place our society is at that people are hyper sensitive to this issue (though perhaps with good reason), but it doesn't mean they have "issues" or are some kind of prudish moralists.

I don't have any problem with the pic. But I do find the vapid, dime store, psycho analysis of people who are bothered by what they see as sexualising a child to be a little condescending.

 

[purpleblackeye]

I haven't seen a high quality version to see if there is a beard or not. But I guarantee you my parents still considered me their child even after facial hair.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[gvox]

Yes, it is.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, it's not


Sent from my ass crack

 

[Nick66]

That image at B&N is actually a high quality image, same size as the album cover artwork Apple uses (maybe a little larger, 600x600), if someone wants to change the cover in their iTunes now.

 

[oktobergirl]

the average person will not see it as child abuse- the guy looks like a young adult and Larry looks like an good looking man
We are only interpreting this way because we heard it was Larry's son. In today's world, this is not controversial. And again, this is just the CD. Who buys CD's anymore? (except us )

 

[U2FAN4LIFE]

What I find fascinating is the contrast between the initial reaction, almost all negative, to this cover in the first hours that it broke, vs. now that people have had the chance to read the views of others and process the imagery.

And almost all the negative comments, many from long time members here, were negative because people didn't like the use of a "child" in this kind of suggestive imagery. One of us suggested that it looked like it could be Michael Jackson cover. Again, most of the negative reactions were over the perceived sexualisation of a child...the bigoted comments from the homophobes came later.

The thing is, we're all U2 fans, most of us are pretty smart, and we know U2's use of this imagery, are inclined to give the band the benefit of the doubt and can reconcile all of this intellectually. But given that the first, initial reaction was pretty visceral in a negative way, it does make me wonder about the kind of power this image has built into it, and how the general public is going to react.

My first post in this thread....
I did find the image "odd" at first because its so different from the imagery we are accustomed to seeing from U2 (at least since AB anyway). Two shirtless men in an embrace of sorts (young/old, gay/straight, related/not, whatever!) is not what I would have expected for the cover. The image itself does not bother me at all and as a father with a young son I find it quite beautiful now that I better understand the context. But I am still suspicious of the band's (and Guy O's) motivation here. Anyhow, the album is great, they could put a picture of a turd on the cover and I'd still buy it.

As for "anticipation33":
I believe the similarities between this cover image and the images he sees in his work are a complete coincidence and very unfortunate. The vast majority of people don't share this same frame of reference but those that do would be understandably bothered by the image so I think its unfair to belittle his comments. His line of work is tougher than I can imagine. I can relate in a way given that there was a suicide in my family a couple years ago; I still cringe when my kids play "hangman" and had to leave the room when certain imagery in "A nightmare before Christmas" was on. Seemingly innocent images can have a traumatic effect on certain people.

 

[Babydoll]

Personally, I love the cover. It's artistic, different and unexpected.

 

[morgan1098]

Remember the four Joshua Tree singles, each with a different band member on the front? Maybe we could get four different SOI covers, each with a band member in a compromising position with one of his kids.

KIDDING. I really wish this topic would die. I love what the photo represents but I also understand why it could be controversial to people who don't know the back story.

 

[Niceman]

I haven't seen a high quality version to see if there is a beard or not. But I guarantee you my parents still considered me their child even after facial hair.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Take a look at the pic on Bn.com. He clearly has facial hair. This is not a minor.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm genuinely curious: What does it mean to be a 'child abuse professional'?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

No, it's not


Sent from my ass crack

Should we tell Larry? He'll be heartbroken, he's raised him as his own.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Babydoll]

Should we tell Larry? He'll be heartbroken, he's raised him as his own.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[corianderstem]

I am also concerned for Larry's son as well as Larry. He seems like a great guy who is protective of his family's privacy. I don't know if they realize what can of worms they may be opening up internationallly and at home with a photo such as this. I am surprised that Larry would allow his son to possibly to be set up for problems because of this. I wonder if its still not too late for them to change it. If not I hope that it turns out ok..

U2 are not naive, and there's no way Larry would have gone with this idea if he or his son had any issues whatsoever about it.

Considering how private Larry has been, I'd say it's damned clear he is a-ok with this being the cover. It's not like the rest of the band did a big-ol' bait-and-switch and tricked Larry into it.

Like others have said, I can definitely understand and appreciate the unique lens you are using to view this, but I think you are projecting a lot more concern onto the situation than needs to be there.

 

[Babydoll]

Ugh. It's unfortunate in this day and age that a photo of a bare-chested father hugging his bare-chested son is somehow controversial. And even worse, that a father hugging his son is mistaken for pedophilia.

It's extremely unfortunate that people continue to make casual links between homosexuality and pedophilia without realizing how completely offensive and dehumanizing that is. I have little sympathy for people who complain about the intolerance shown towards them when they're making a direct link between homosexuality and those who prey on little children. Not all viewpoints deserve tolerance.

It's also unfortunate that people here take offensive statements as a sign that they can be as insulting in response as they want to be.

This all day long.

 

[gvox]

Should we tell Larry? He'll be heartbroken, he's raised him as his own.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If your parents still considered you their "child" after you clearly appeared to be entering (or in) manhood, that's on you and them. Most well adjusted people see their young adults as their sons, offspring, etc.,..but as their "child" in the sense and context being discussed, ie, with regards to pedophilia? No, they decidedly do not.


Sent from my ass crack

 

[Nick66]

It's interesting how this pic makes people feel, because I think anyone looking at it, not knowing who it was in the image, would see it as sexual on at least some level.

But then when you explain who it is in the pic, most people can see it as an innocent expression of parental love. But given that almost everyone's first reaction is to see the sexuality in it, it just makes the image all the more interesting and challenging. Which is what good art is supposed to do.

In any event, if someone looked at this pic not knowing who these people are and claimed not to see anything sexual in it, I'm not sure I'd believe them.

Fascinating.

 

[BVS]

If your parents still considered you their "child" after you clearly appeared to be entering (or in) manhood, that's on you and them. Most well adjusted people see their young adults as their sons, offspring, etc.,..but as their "child" in the sense and context being discussed, ie, with regards to pedophilia? No, they decidedly do not.


Sent from my ass crack

I'm not talking about pedophillia, those people are idiots.

I'm talking about the concept that Elvis is the child as a symbol of innocence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Nick66]

I haven't seen a high quality version to see if there is a beard or not. But I guarantee you my parents still considered me their child even after facial hair.

I think the facial hair thing is a red herring...from whatever POV you have on this image. "Minors" can certainly have facial hair, and if anything this facial hair looks like the kind of stubble you associate with younger boys. But obviously not too young.

What a weird convo we are all having on a U2 forum.

 

[gvox]

I'm not talking about pedophillia, those people are idiots.

I'm talking about the concept that Elvis is the child as a symbol of innocence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I see. Well that's one way to interpret it. I don't see it that deeply or at least in the exact same sense, and as the father of a young man trying to strike out on his own as much as he can it speaks to me on a very personal level: I can feel myself clinging to him for dear life, not for some mournful feeling of innocence lost (I'm pretty sure he lost much of his already lmao), but because as he does become a man the instances where we can embrace or be close are so few and far between that each one feels like it needs to really count. On that level, this image really speaks very very deeply to me.



Sent from my ass crack

 

[dan_smee]

It's interesting how this pic makes people feel, because I think anyone looking at it, not knowing who it was in the image, would see it as sexual on at least some level.



But then when you explain who it is in the pic, most people can see it as an innocent expression of parental love. But given that almost everyone's first reaction is to see the sexuality in it, it just makes the image all the more interesting and challenging. Which is what good art is supposed to do.



In any event, if someone looked at this pic not knowing who these people are and claimed not to see anything sexual in it, I'm not sure I'd believe them.



Fascinating.

I whole-heartlessly agree with this


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference