Rolling Stone covers are art?
I'm against the recent cover of the Rolling Stone magazine. I dislike that they would put the face of a bomber, a murderer on their magazine.
I support those companies who refuse to distribute it and those who pulled it from their shelves.
So is Rolling Stone magazine just trying to increase sales or are they trying to make a point? Their view is that he is an iconic figure. I disagree.
That face is now an iconic figure because Rolling Stone magazine did this; they now created him as being an iconic figure.
Shame on them.