I'm just waiting for someone to list all the "perfectly valid" interpretations of this album cover, in spite of, and that vary in a significant way from, the explanation that U2 gave...that include anything to do with pedophilia, abuse, or even homoeroticism.
I mean, let's hear 'em! It's all great to wax poetic and post a load of pseudo-intellectual garbage hypotheticals, but the reality is that there aren't many interpretations that veer into those danger zones that any right minded person is going to say are "valid". They will be, in fact, a gross misinterpretation of what both the artist (U2) and the subjects (LMJ and his son) both meant and agreed to portray.
So..I won't hold my breath waiting for that list
Sent from my ass crack
Well here's the thing.
Let's take a new U2 fan, the kind they've been hoping to get lately. Someone who had heard a song on iTunes from the album, decided it was good, listened to the rest, became a fan. Doesn't really know much about U2, and unlike the rest if us here who are way, way too familiar with the boys, doesn't even know the name of anyone in the band other than maybe Bono, and might not be able to identify Larry or Adam as part of the band on sight.
So they decide they'll pick up the CD when it's out, because they loved the iTunes release. They see this cover.
They'll have a reaction other than 'That's Larry Holding his son! It's that same theme I've been catching throughout the album!"
Chances are, their gut reaction will be something else.
Could be:
- Um.. Two guys.. I didn't know the band had gay guys in it.
- That looks deep.. Wonder what the meaning behind it is.
- Are those two of the band members?
- Reminds me of the Chili Peppers.
- I'm a little uncomfortable with seeing two guys embrace
- I'm relieved to see two guys embrace.
- what a great photo.. The lighting, the composition, the models.. Lovely.
- What a crap photo, they're trying too hard..
- It's weird to see an older guy and a younger guy like that
- it's tender to see and older guy and a younger guy like that
- are they brothers?
- Meh.
And so on and so forth. Some people will come up with meaning for it that will either match what was intended or be something different.
And maybe the person who sees it first might have never heard the album or know of it's themes. Maybe it'll just be a picture they see in the store. What would they think?
Of course, those who are curious will google it, and find out who's in the pic, and what it was meant to convey. This could change the meaning for them. Or it could not, they might understand what it meant, but preferred their interpretation better. Some can handle both.
And while I'm in that camp of 'It means what it means.. I've heard the album, I know who's in the picture, I know what it's meant to be, I get it." I can't really say that if someone else saw it, and it made them think or feel something differently, that what they thought and felt at the time was 'incorrect'. The idea is that art draws something out of you as much as it also dictates to you. It's not all just the facts.
It's like misheard song lyrics. Sometimes, when I find out I got a lyric wrong, I still prefer how i misheard it to the original once I find out the difference.
(I thought, for about a month before I read the lyrics in the booklet, that 'In A Little While' had the line: "mad dreams weren't made to fly" and while I know it's wrong, I still sing along with it that way.)
Seal, for one, refused to print his lyrics because he said the emotion of the song is more important than the precise letter of the law, and he loved some alternate versions some fans heard and presented to him. He thought those lyrics often captured the a meaning of the song as much as the ones he wrote, so who was he to say they couldn't be as good?
So that's it. We know what the picture is about. We don't know what everyone will feel or think looking at it, nor can we say those thoughts or feelings are wrong.. Only that they might not be the same as what the artist intended.
Sent from my fingertips.
?
