A while back I ridiculed U2 for choosing such a nonsensical album title, No Line on the Horizon. Amazingly, many people here didn't quite understand that a horizon IS, in fact, a LINE. The album title is basically the equivalent of saying "no line on the line." Complete idiotic. The album should be called No Horizon, because if you can't see where the earth (or sea) ends and the sky begins for whatever reason, the horizon does not exist. The horizon is not a concrete thing, but rather what we perceive as a boundary of sorts.
But since then, I've given U2 some artistic leeway on the title. Why the heck not? Songwriters make these inane proclamations all the time. Not like U2 will realize their mistake and change the title now. Regardless, you would think the album cover would visually represent as closely as possible what "no line on the horizon" would look like. WRONG. This horizon (or the "line on the horizon", for the semantically-challenged) is as visible as the zits on a 14-year-old. Which makes the album title even more laughable. If you're gonna NAME it "no line", there should BE "no line", even one that is blurry in an attempt to mimic the intended meaning.
To show you what an album cover with no horizon SHOULD look like, here are some photos I found on the internet with horizons clearly missing. (Consequently, all of the following photos were titled or captioned 'No Horizon' on the webpages on which they were found.)