Rolling Stone covers are art?

digitalbeachbum's picture

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594205/rolling-stone-defends-cover-featuring-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect/

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

 To answer the title which

 To answer the title which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest, yes Rolling Stone covers are definitely art. 

As to being offended by them, I don't get it. Being offended by a magazine cover is something so foreign to me that I cannot relate to it at all. The reality is that people are as equally intrigued, if not more intrigued, with villains as they are with heroes. So having the mug of someone who is arguably the largest villain of the moment makes a lot of sense from a marketing standpoint. A lot of people are intrigued with how an apparently normal young man living a fairly comfortable life could do something so horrific. I have never bought a Rolling Stone magazine, but I can understand why many people within their demographic would be attracted to it. 

From Rolling Stone's perspective, they have always made their money by offending conservatives and having controversial covers has always been one of the tricks in their bags. Young people see all the old people getting offended, and as young people are apt to do, go out and buy the things that offend their parents. I'm sure when they chose this cover they were hoping for exactly the uproar of people being offended that they are getting. Historically, it has boosted their sales, and I suspect this time will be no different. The people who get offended by it probably are not people who would have bought the magazine anyway. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

digitalbeachbum's picture

 

 

digitalbeachbum's picture

It's perfectly fine to do

It's perfectly fine to do what ever the heck they want, it after all is their magazine, but they are creating the icon. The icon of the bomber did not exist previously, but with this cover, he becomes iconic.

I am a reader of the magazine, I did not subscribe, but have purchased single editions.

As this edition goes on newsstands I and others will cease to read their articles.

And the title of this post isn't about the content of the article concerning the bomber... It has to do with the "cover of Rolling Stone".

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:It's

digitalbeachbum wrote:

It's perfectly fine to do what ever the heck they want, it after all is their magazine, but they are creating the icon. The icon of the bomber did not exist previously, but with this cover, he becomes iconic.

I am a reader of the magazine, I did not subscribe, but have purchased single editions.

As this edition goes on newsstands I and others will cease to read their articles.

And the title of this post isn't about the content of the article concerning the bomber... It has to do with the "cover of Rolling Stone".

Hardly. Rolling Stone's worldwide circulation is less than 1.5 million. If it wasn't for the sensationalist headlines the vast majority of people would have no clue what was on their cover. Rolling Stone doesn't make icons, they often put icons on their cover but that is very different from being the ones creating icons. If Tsarnaev is any kind of icon (something I think is debatable) it has nothing to do with Rolling Stone. And I think the fears that it is somehow going to inspire copycats are about as legitimate as the fears that violent video games create psychopaths.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

Vastet's picture

Innocent until proven

Innocent until proven guilty.

Besides, how many magazine covers was George Bush on? He made this guy look like an amateur.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

This asshole shouldn't be on

This asshole shouldn't be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Atheistextremist's picture

RS

 

is free to do what it likes - in this case create global media attention. 

I don't like it, I don't like the smoldering pose, even the tenor of the story seems to shift blame sideways, as if this little shit does not have responsibility for his actions. 

This guy is some one who gets the thumbs down in my fantasy star chamber. One in the guts, tied over an anthill. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

digitalbeachbum's picture

Atheistextremist wrote: is

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

is free to do what it likes - in this case create global media attention. 

I don't like it, I don't like the smoldering pose, even the tenor of the story seems to shift blame sideways, as if this little shit does not have responsibility for his actions. 

This guy is some one who gets the thumbs down in my fantasy star chamber. One in the guts, tied over an anthill. 

 

 

Yeah, that entire picture is bad. They are even asking why they put it through filters and shoppd it to make him look like a rock star.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Vastet's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:This

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This asshole shouldn't be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Until you own it you don't get to make that call. Whoever they want on the cover is who should be on the cover.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

This asshole shouldn't be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Until you own it you don't get to make that call. Whoever they want on the cover is who should be on the cover.

In your own way, you've basically just repeated what I said previously.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Vastet's picture

No. The terminology I used

No. The terminology I used was specifically placed so as to disagree. You admitted it was their magazine and they can do what they like, but you then put a moral imperative on it being a bad thing by saying they should not have done it. But your morals don't dictate what should and should not happen.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:No. The

Vastet wrote:
No. The terminology I used was specifically placed so as to disagree. You admitted it was their magazine and they can do what they like, but you then put a moral imperative on it being a bad thing by saying they should not have done it. But your morals don't dictate what should and should not happen.

It is fine for them to do what they want, they can put the picture of dead kittens on their cover, but don't expect me to purchase their magazine any more.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Vastet's picture

I'm sure their 'Fox' style

I'm sure their 'Fox' style sensationalism made them enough money to afford losing a few customers. It seems to work well in the US. For every customer they lost they probably gained 10 more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.