tricky99 said:

What makes Lovesexy Iconic as a cover is the very fact that people project upon the cover what it is in their own minds. The cover itself is fairly neutral. Its simply a nude man (with the private parts covered up) surrounded by flowers.

How you see it says somthing about your mindset. Those who find it vulger or embarassing becuase of modest nudity have issues with the natural body. Those who have a problem because its a nude "MAN" have issues with homophobia and masculinity.

I'm fairly sure that prince viewed it as presenting honesty, revelation, and openness. As we all know LoveSexy as a work is about love, God, and sexuality in its positive sense.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:28am]

I don't have a problem with it because of nudity or because it's a nude man. I just think it's an unattractive photo and an ill-conceived design. And homophobia has nothing to do with it. I can see the beauty in Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of nude men even though they don't arouse me sexually, for example. As a work of music, Lovesexy is a brilliant commentary on "love, God and sexuality in its positive sense." The cover photo has no more artistic merit than the movies Prince directed.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:41am]

electricberet said:

tricky99 said:

What makes Lovesexy Iconic as a cover is the very fact that people project upon the cover what it is in their own minds. The cover itself is fairly neutral. Its simply a nude man (with the private parts covered up) surrounded by flowers.

How you see it says somthing about your mindset. Those who find it vulger or embarassing becuase of modest nudity have issues with the natural body. Those who have a problem because its a nude "MAN" have issues with homophobia and masculinity.

I'm fairly sure that prince viewed it as presenting honesty, revelation, and openness. As we all know LoveSexy as a work is about love, God, and sexuality in its positive sense.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:28am]

I don't have a problem with it because of nudity or because it's a nude man. I just think it's an unattractive photo and an ill-conceived design. And homophobia has nothing to do with it. I can see the beauty in Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of nude men even though they don't arouse me sexually, for example. As a work of music, Lovesexy is a brilliant commentary on "love, God and sexuality in its positive sense." The cover photo has no more artistic merit than the movies Prince directed.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:41am]

That's your opinion but it doesn't speak to the controversy that makes the cover a topic of conversation in the first place.

tricky99 said:

electricberet said:

I don't have a problem with it because of nudity or because it's a nude man. I just think it's an unattractive photo and an ill-conceived design. And homophobia has nothing to do with it. I can see the beauty in Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of nude men even though they don't arouse me sexually, for example. As a work of music, Lovesexy is a brilliant commentary on "love, God and sexuality in its positive sense." The cover photo has no more artistic merit than the movies Prince directed.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:41am]

That's your opinion but it doesn't speak to the controversy that makes the cover a topic of conversation in the first place.

Well, the controversy seems to be between those who think the Lovesexy cover was a brilliant artistic statement misunderstood by the homophobic masses, and those who think it's just a lousy cover. So I'm making the latter case. I don't think the cover even conveys the same message as the album. Lovesexy is about loving other people and God. The cover, at least to me, conveys vanity and self-love. If I saw that album in the store for the first time, based on the cover I would expect the songs to be mainly about masturbation. That's why I asked if anyone is actually turned on by the cover.

V10LETBLUES said:

I like the colors and composition. It does look dated in that we see this type of Photoshop daily now. Imago's "mullet poodleman" immediately comes to mind.

But in a nonsexual strictly artistic sense, I think the artwork is great. I think the cover is "iconic" but an iconic that cuts both ways, good and bad.

It's absolutely brilliant.

Late 80s---machismo everywhere in America. Homophobia running rampant and unchecked. Heavy Metal was the rule of the day, with gansta rap looming and breaking in to the seen. It was all about Testosterone.

...then along comes this 'gospel' album smoothed out on an incredibly gay tip.

Brilliant.

I love the color, composition, everything about the album cover. Although I think it would have been a much more suitable album cover for 'Camille'

electricberet said:

tricky99 said:

That's your opinion but it doesn't speak to the controversy that makes the cover a topic of conversation in the first place.

Well, the controversy seems to be between those who think the Lovesexy cover was a brilliant artistic statement misunderstood by the homophobic masses, and those who think it's just a lousy cover. So I'm making the latter case. I don't think the cover even conveys the same message as the album. Lovesexy is about loving other people and God. The cover, at least to me, conveys vanity and self-love. If I saw that album in the store for the first time, based on the cover I would expect the songs to be mainly about masturbation. That's why I asked if anyone is actually turned on by the cover.

The white space filled clean cut album cover depicts Prince holding his heart in some sort of Eden setting of giant flowers presumably looking into the face and breath of God and he's gone more natural with bushy eyebrows and no heavy eye makeup or shadow. His pose is non-sexual.

The album on the other hand has lyrics like this in the title track "Lovesexy":

"Oh, pretty little whip, U got me drippin'
Drippin' all over the floor, the floor
If I come back as a woman, I want a body like yours
A body like yours

Living rooms
I think... I think U would
I think U wanna play house
Yeah, I think U wanna play house

Lovesexy

U don't mind
I think U, uh
I think U want me to (beep) inside of U
Yeah,yeah, I

U want (Lovesexy) me to s...sit around your living room
Ha Ha
Yeah, U
U want me to walk right down your halls

mmm hmmm
Lovesexy

U want me to swivel in your love seat
Don't U baby?

U want me to write my name on your walls
U want me to write my name"

[Edited 9/30/11 11:36am]

rdhull said:

that flower stem

imago said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I like the colors and composition. It does look dated in that we see this type of Photoshop daily now. Imago's "mullet poodleman" immediately comes to mind.

But in a nonsexual strictly artistic sense, I think the artwork is great. I think the cover is "iconic" but an iconic that cuts both ways, good and bad.

It's absolutely brilliant.

Late 80s---machismo everywhere in America. Homophobia running rampant and unchecked. Heavy Metal was the rule of the day, with gansta rap looming and breaking in to the seen. It was all about Testosterone.

...then along comes this 'gospel' album smoothed out on an incredibly gay tip.

Brilliant.

I love the color, composition, everything about the album cover. Although I think it would have been a much more suitable album cover for 'Camille'

But does it turn you on?

The Dirty Mind cover sends a clear message: I want YOU. NOW. The Lovesexy cover says, I need some time alone, could you shut the door please?

rdhull said:

V10LETBLUES said:

But it is! When people, fans or not talk about Prince covers, this one will be usually thrown into the mix, the list we are talking about for example. Most definitely iconic. But like I said, in both a good and bad sense.

controversial doesnt equal iconic

iconic is madonnas Like a Virgin, Marvyns Whats Goin On, Springsteens Born To Run, Princes P Rain or SOTT, Sticky Fingers etc etc..

Lovesexy is just a bad airbrushed 13 year old girl with a mustache in some Dr Suess flower land...

vainandy is still pissed that they airbrushed his body hair.

electricberet said:

imago said:

It's absolutely brilliant.

Late 80s---machismo everywhere in America. Homophobia running rampant and unchecked. Heavy Metal was the rule of the day, with gansta rap looming and breaking in to the seen. It was all about Testosterone.

...then along comes this 'gospel' album smoothed out on an incredibly gay tip.

Brilliant.

I love the color, composition, everything about the album cover. Although I think it would have been a much more suitable album cover for 'Camille'

But does it turn you on?

The Dirty Mind cover sends a clear message: I want YOU. NOW. The Lovesexy cover says, I need some time alone, could you shut the door please?

NOTHING about Prince turns me on.

However, I don't think the image has any sexual vibe to it whatsover--ironic consider it has a naked man and a flower with a cock on it.

But, it just has this sort of nuetral appearance to it. He's looking up as if he's being told something from the camerman (or in this case, God). It has no sexual or pornographic feel to it, which makes it al the more silly that the USA freaked out about the cover.

imago said:

But, it just has this sort of nuetral appearance to it. He's looking up as if he's being told something from the camerman (or in this case, God).

And to be fair, it does have a "high end" Sears portait photography feel to it.

bulllshit

whoever made that list is a prick

I can understand if that cover makes the "Most Bizarre" , "WTF-inducing", "Most controversial" lists

but it is NOT a bad cover, it's quite excellent...

imago said:

electricberet said:

But does it turn you on?

The Dirty Mind cover sends a clear message: I want YOU. NOW. The Lovesexy cover says, I need some time alone, could you shut the door please?

NOTHING about Prince turns me on.

However, I don't think the image has any sexual vibe to it whatsover--ironic consider it has a naked man and a flower with a cock on it.

But, it just has this sort of nuetral appearance to it. He's looking up as if he's being told something from the camerman (or in this case, God). It has no sexual or pornographic feel to it, which makes it al the more silly that the USA freaked out about the cover.

Of course it does. The flower has an erection. Why have Prince reclining on a flower with a hard-on if you're trying to convey pure spirituality?

V10LETBLUES said:

imago said:

But, it just has this sort of nuetral appearance to it. He's looking up as if he's being told something from the camerman (or in this case, God).

And to be fair, it does have a "high end" Sears portait photography feel to it.

True

But I've always thought that 1999 looked like one of those bargain patterns you see old women buying at JoAnne fabrics to make summer shirts to wear.

electricberet said:

imago said:

NOTHING about Prince turns me on.

However, I don't think the image has any sexual vibe to it whatsover--ironic consider it has a naked man and a flower with a cock on it.

But, it just has this sort of nuetral appearance to it. He's looking up as if he's being told something from the camerman (or in this case, God). It has no sexual or pornographic feel to it, which makes it al the more silly that the USA freaked out about the cover.

Of course it does. The flower has an erection. Why have Prince reclining on a flower with a hard-on if you're trying to convey pure spirituality?

Becaue sexuality, to Prince at that time was spiritual. The flower looks kind of limp to me.

The picture has undeniable sexual energy....but it's not sexual... or at least not sexy or pornographic.

I don't think it was Prince's intent to have anybody masturbating to it.

imago said:

electricberet said:

Of course it does. The flower has an erection. Why have Prince reclining on a flower with a hard-on if you're trying to convey pure spirituality?

Becaue sexuality, to Prince at that time was spiritual. The flower looks kind of limp to me.

The picture has undeniable sexual energy....but it's not sexual... or at least not sexy or pornographic.

I don't think it was Prince's intent to have anybody masturbating to it.

I was thinking about that. But it's in the wrong direction to be limp. Judging by the angle of the dangle, increased by the heat of the meat, I'd say it's a strangely curved penis but definitely erect.

I know that Prince saw a connection between spirituality and sexuality at the time, but this cover was not a good way of explaining his philosophy to the record-buying public.

tricky99 said:

What makes Lovesexy Iconic as a cover is the very fact that people project upon the cover what it is in their own minds. The cover itself is fairly neutral. Its simply a nude man (with the private parts covered up) surrounded by flowers.

How you see it says somthing about your mindset. Those who find it vulger or embarassing becuase of modest nudity have issues with the natural body. Those who have a problem because its a nude "MAN" have issues with homophobia and masculinity.

I'm fairly sure that prince viewed it as presenting honesty, revelation, and openness. As we all know LoveSexy as a work is about love, God, and sexuality in its positive sense.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:28am]

Oh, so now it's a projective Rorschach test? lol please gtfoohwtbs

we all get what he was trying to exemplify..and sometimes they come out as blunders or wonders

electricberet said:

imago said:

Becaue sexuality, to Prince at that time was spiritual. The flower looks kind of limp to me.

The picture has undeniable sexual energy....but it's not sexual... or at least not sexy or pornographic.

I don't think it was Prince's intent to have anybody masturbating to it.

I was thinking about that. But it's in the wrong direction to be limp. Judging by the angle of the dangle, increased by the heat of the meat, I'd say it's a strangely curved penis but definitely erect.

I know that Prince saw a connection between spirituality and sexuality at the time, but this cover was not a good way of explaining his philosophy to the record-buying public.

But neither the album nor the cover is a cover.

It's a bold proclaimation and a challenge to the listener/viewer.

The album is a jumbled mess of sounds, melodic and screechy... the themes are messy...everything is messy. I don't think Prince ever intended for it to be an easy pill to swallow.

I think the entire thing is brilliant---everything but the music, which I think is mostly just good.

rdhull said:

tricky99 said:

What makes Lovesexy Iconic as a cover is the very fact that people project upon the cover what it is in their own minds. The cover itself is fairly neutral. Its simply a nude man (with the private parts covered up) surrounded by flowers.

How you see it says somthing about your mindset. Those who find it vulger or embarassing becuase of modest nudity have issues with the natural body. Those who have a problem because its a nude "MAN" have issues with homophobia and masculinity.

I'm fairly sure that prince viewed it as presenting honesty, revelation, and openness. As we all know LoveSexy as a work is about love, God, and sexuality in its positive sense.

[Edited 9/30/11 9:28am]

Oh, so now it's a projective Rorschach test? lol please gtfoohwtbs

we all get what he was trying to exemplify..and sometimes they come out as blunders or wonders

Obviously that's not true since there is controversy surrounding it in general and in this very thread. Many have stated how embarassed they were to buy the album and how they hid it. If those reations aren't issues that deal with nudity, homophobia, and the "fear" of male nudeness what does it mean? As I remember certain stores refused to display the album. When in reality prince is not even showing us the goods at all.

Even the implication of nudity sent folks runinng for hills. It certainly does say something about the viewer and their reaction. Why would you argue otherwise?

imago said:

electricberet said:

I was thinking about that. But it's in the wrong direction to be limp. Judging by the angle of the dangle, increased by the heat of the meat, I'd say it's a strangely curved penis but definitely erect.

I know that Prince saw a connection between spirituality and sexuality at the time, but this cover was not a good way of explaining his philosophy to the record-buying public.

But neither the album nor the cover is a cover.

It's a bold proclaimation and a challenge to the listener/viewer.

The album is a jumbled mess of sounds, melodic and screechy... the themes are messy...everything is messy. I don't think Prince ever intended for it to be an easy pill to swallow.

I think the entire thing is brilliant---everything but the music, which I think is mostly just good.

So you think Prince wanted people to be turned off by the cover and never hear the music? I find that hard to believe. If he really wanted to send a message with the cover photo, he could have put it on the inner sleeve and have a cover photo that made people actually want to buy the record. Then they might hear the music AND get the special kind of enlightenment that can be obtained by seeing Prince naked on a phallic flower. Why would he spend so much time creating intricate arrangements for Lovesexy if he didn't want people to hear the music?

I think he was so self-absorbed at that point that he thought people would love the cover. After Lovesexy flopped in the U.S., he went as commercial as he could possibly go for Batman.

electricberet said:

tricky99 said:

That's your opinion but it doesn't speak to the controversy that makes the cover a topic of conversation in the first place.

Well, the controversy seems to be between those who think the Lovesexy cover was a brilliant artistic statement misunderstood by the homophobic masses, and those who think it's just a lousy cover. So I'm making the latter case. I don't think the cover even conveys the same message as the album. Lovesexy is about loving other people and God. The cover, at least to me, conveys vanity and self-love. If I saw that album in the store for the first time, based on the cover I would expect the songs to be mainly about masturbation. That's why I asked if anyone is actually turned on by the cover.

You deny my point and then turn around and make it for me lol. U project vanity and masturbation on the cover. Which in turn reveals your own mindset since Prince has never stated anything like that about the cover.

[Edited 9/30/11 10:51am]

tricky99 said:

rdhull said:

Oh, so now it's a projective Rorschach test? lol please gtfoohwtbs

we all get what he was trying to exemplify..and sometimes they come out as blunders or wonders

Obviously that's not true since there is controversy surrounding it in general and in this very thread. Many have stated how embarassed they were to buy the album and how they hid it. If those reations aren't issues that deal with nudity, homophobia, and the "fear" of male nudeness what does it mean? As I remember certain stores refused to display the album. When in reality prince is not even showing us the goods at all.

Even the implication of nudity sent folks runinng for hills. It certainly does say something about the viewer and their reaction. Why would you argue otherwise?

1. Im not arguing.

2. It wasn't a pieve of art aesthetic that made folks embarrassed to purchase it publicly. Its simply akin to ordering peanut butter and jelly at Spagos or putting ketchup on filet mignon is all. Lets not make this Lovesexy ish bigger than it is

3. Y'all are so savy in the 00's regarding Prince and his .."philosophies" of time, payments etc but when it comes to that Lovesexy cover its back to "omg he is realllly saying something here"

tricky99 said:

electricberet said:

Well, the controversy seems to be between those who think the Lovesexy cover was a brilliant artistic statement misunderstood by the homophobic masses, and those who think it's just a lousy cover. So I'm making the latter case. I don't think the cover even conveys the same message as the album. Lovesexy is about loving other people and God. The cover, at least to me, conveys vanity and self-love. If I saw that album in the store for the first time, based on the cover I would expect the songs to be mainly about masturbation. That's why I asked if anyone is actually turned on by the cover.

You deny my point and then turn around and make it for me lol. U project vanity and masturbation on the cover. Which in turn reveals your own mindset since Prince has never stated anything like that about the cover.

[Edited 9/30/11 10:51am]

I get it. You're a deconstructionist. I happen to believe in objective reality and the objective reality is that Lovesexy has a shitty cover.

electricberet said:

imago said:

But neither the album nor the cover is a cover.

It's a bold proclaimation and a challenge to the listener/viewer.

The album is a jumbled mess of sounds, melodic and screechy... the themes are messy...everything is messy. I don't think Prince ever intended for it to be an easy pill to swallow.

I think the entire thing is brilliant---everything but the music, which I think is mostly just good.

So you think Prince wanted people to be turned off by the cover and never hear the music? I find that hard to believe. If he really wanted to send a message with the cover photo, he could have put it on the inner sleeve and have a cover photo that made people actually want to buy the record. Then they might hear the music AND get the special kind of enlightenment that can be obtained by seeing Prince naked on a phallic flower. Why would he spend so much time creating intricate arrangements for Lovesexy if he didn't want people to hear the music?

I think he was so self-absorbed at that point that he thought people would love the cover. After Lovesexy flopped in the U.S., he went as commercial as he could possibly go for Batman.

Perhaps a ittle nuance is in order here.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is Prince never set out to make a 'pop' album that was designed for the masses.

He was out to make a statement.... a challenge.

Many artists do the same thing. NIN released "The Downward Spiral" which was a concept album and a statement, and certainly not designed for top 40 radio---it just so happened that it was the band's breakout album into the mainstream, but it was never their intention. Trent Rezner was trying to make a statement.

This was what Prince was doing. hence, the material was challenging and the album cover was provocative and challenging.

Prince once described the album cover as a 'mirror'. Whatever you see when you look at it, and the words that come out of your mouth as a reaction says more about you than it does about the cover. I can't remember the article or magazine, but I remember that statement sticking with me.

I've never liked the cover because I felt it wasn't a good look for Prince. He appears terribly thin and small and frail. The flowers in the background look cheap. The color scheme is off. Its just a weak cover compared to his other albums. I think his best covers are 1999 and UTCM with Rainbow Children receiving honorable mention.

rdhull said:

tricky99 said:

Obviously that's not true since there is controversy surrounding it in general and in this very thread. Many have stated how embarassed they were to buy the album and how they hid it. If those reations aren't issues that deal with nudity, homophobia, and the "fear" of male nudeness what does it mean? As I remember certain stores refused to display the album. When in reality prince is not even showing us the goods at all.

Even the implication of nudity sent folks runinng for hills. It certainly does say something about the viewer and their reaction. Why would you argue otherwise?

1. Im not arguing.

2. It wasn't a pieve of art aesthetic that made folks embarrassed to purchase it publicly. Its simply akin to ordering peanut butter and jelly at Spagos or putting ketchup on filet mignon is all. Lets not make this Lovesexy ish bigger than it is

3. Y'all are so savy in the 00's regarding Prince and his .."philosophies" of time, payments etc but when it comes to that Lovesexy cover its back to "omg he is realllly saying something here"

U can agree or disagree with Prince but he is always "saying something". I can't believe that any fan that has been following his career would believe that his music does not contain a philosopy. U might not agree with it but it is certainly always present.

Your analogy really makes no sense. Why deny the controversy? It certainly had nothing to with whether it was good or bad art.

imago said:

electricberet said:

So you think Prince wanted people to be turned off by the cover and never hear the music? I find that hard to believe. If he really wanted to send a message with the cover photo, he could have put it on the inner sleeve and have a cover photo that made people actually want to buy the record. Then they might hear the music AND get the special kind of enlightenment that can be obtained by seeing Prince naked on a phallic flower. Why would he spend so much time creating intricate arrangements for Lovesexy if he didn't want people to hear the music?

I think he was so self-absorbed at that point that he thought people would love the cover. After Lovesexy flopped in the U.S., he went as commercial as he could possibly go for Batman.

Perhaps a ittle nuance is in order here.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is Prince never set out to make a 'pop' album that was designed for the masses.

He was out to make a statement.... a challenge.

Many artists do the same thing. NIN released "The Downward Spiral" which was a concept album and a statement, and certainly not designed for top 40 radio---it just so happened that it was the band's breakout album into the mainstream, but it was never their intention. Trent Rezner was trying to make a statement.

This was what Prince was doing. hence, the material was challenging and the album cover was provocative and challenging.

Prince once described the album cover as a 'mirror'. Whatever you see when you look at it, and the words that come out of your mouth as a reaction says more about you than it does about the cover. I can't remember the article or magazine, but I remember that statement sticking with me.

I kind of agree with this in that I think Prince only cared about the ones who would "get it" and "get him" to liisten to it.

electricberet said:

tricky99 said:

You deny my point and then turn around and make it for me lol. U project vanity and masturbation on the cover. Which in turn reveals your own mindset since Prince has never stated anything like that about the cover.

[Edited 9/30/11 10:51am]

I get it. You're a deconstructionist. I happen to believe in objective reality and the objective reality is that Lovesexy has a shitty cover.

U are presenting yourself as a moron.

The album cover is Prince's contemporary version of the type of religious art in old ass religious frescos, where the nudity could be said to indicate purity or simplicity under the eyes of a god (since clothing is actually a symptom of sin, according to the story of Adam and Eve), not sexuality.

tricky99 said:

rdhull said:

1. Im not arguing.

2. It wasn't a pieve of art aesthetic that made folks embarrassed to purchase it publicly. Its simply akin to ordering peanut butter and jelly at Spagos or putting ketchup on filet mignon is all. Lets not make this Lovesexy ish bigger than it is

3. Y'all are so savy in the 00's regarding Prince and his .."philosophies" of time, payments etc but when it comes to that Lovesexy cover its back to "omg he is realllly saying something here"

U can agree or disagree with Prince but he is always "saying something". I can't believe that any fan that has been following his career would believe that his music does not contain a philosopy. U might not agree with it but it is certainly always present.

Your analogy really makes no sense. Why deny the controversy? It certainly had nothing to with whether it was good or bad art.

Im not saying his music didn't contain a philosophy, Im saying that the philosophy was either bullshit, made up for only marketing, or a total sham. Hell..yall taught me that.

rdhull said:

imago said:

Perhaps a ittle nuance is in order here.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is Prince never set out to make a 'pop' album that was designed for the masses.

He was out to make a statement.... a challenge.

Many artists do the same thing. NIN released "The Downward Spiral" which was a concept album and a statement, and certainly not designed for top 40 radio---it just so happened that it was the band's breakout album into the mainstream, but it was never their intention. Trent Rezner was trying to make a statement.

This was what Prince was doing. hence, the material was challenging and the album cover was provocative and challenging.

Prince once described the album cover as a 'mirror'. Whatever you see when you look at it, and the words that come out of your mouth as a reaction says more about you than it does about the cover. I can't remember the article or magazine, but I remember that statement sticking with me.

I kind of agree with this in that I think Prince only cared about the ones who would "get it" and "get him" to liisten to it.

I don't think so. "Dance On" and "Positivity" are about violence, poverty, and education--the same social issues he tackled on SOTT. He specifically challenges Detroit about the problems there. Didn't he want people to get that message--not just his most devoted fans, but everyone?

As for Prince calling the album cover a "mirror," that's another way of saying, "it's not a bad cover, you just don't appreciate its beauty." Which is exactly what you'd say if you made a mistake and didn't want to admit it.

[Edited 9/30/11 11:06am]