Worst Cover Art (Christian Metal)

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Pethead wrote:To piggyback off the other thread about great cover art, let’s post our examples of bad cover art. (This is all in fun!) I’m not talking just this year, but ever. (Let’s just keep it Christian because secular often has a whole other level of badness).

I’ll kick us off. This is a great album and, IMHBAO, one of the top 5 Christian metal bands of all time, but:

seth wrote:The Antiseptic Bloodbath cover doesn’t show Jesus as a living person who had been brutalized, it showed Him as a rotting corpse who was basically a skeleton. There’s a clear difference. Idk what the point of that was supposed to be, even ignoring the comparison to the cow

Black Rider wrote:

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lots of conjecture here. If this was the point it's making  no one was thinking it as everyone knows crucifixion was incredibly brutal. No matter the intent it's in poor taste.

Airola wrote:

Black Rider wrote:

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lots of conjecture here. If this was the point it's making  no one was thinking it as everyone knows crucifixion was incredibly brutal. No matter the intent it's in poor taste.

Personally my biggest problem with the cover art is that it doesn't really reflect what the music in the album is. There are like maybe a couple of songs that have something that reflects the tone of the cover art.

Pethead wrote:

Airola wrote:

Black Rider wrote:

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lots of conjecture here. If this was the point it's making  no one was thinking it as everyone knows crucifixion was incredibly brutal. No matter the intent it's in poor taste.

Personally my biggest problem with the cover art is that it doesn't really reflect what the music in the album is. There are like maybe a couple of songs that have something that reflects the tone of the cover art.

True. I think a lot of people write off the album because they think it’s all animal rights songs, but it’s most definitely not.

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:

Airola wrote:

Black Rider wrote:

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lots of conjecture here. If this was the point it's making  no one was thinking it as everyone knows crucifixion was incredibly brutal. No matter the intent it's in poor taste.

Personally my biggest problem with the cover art is that it doesn't really reflect what the music in the album is. There are like maybe a couple of songs that have something that reflects the tone of the cover art.

True. I think a lot of people write off the album because they think it’s all animal rights songs, but it’s most definitely not.

Though tbf a lot of cover art only really reflects the title track

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:

Airola wrote:

Black Rider wrote:

JcHiker76 wrote:

Airola wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Pethead wrote:^^
I’ll never be ok with that cover, even though I enjoy the album.

When I was younger I didn't like it for different reasons (I was very squeamish and so the cow's fleshy ribs bothered me lol).

I'm not sure the intention was to compare the animals suffering with Jesus's and more to draw parallels (both are ignored by people who profit from them), but the cover doesn't portray that well.

Yeah it wasn't to compare the sacrifice, but to point at our reactions to suffering.

I recall the bones of Christ came fully from Travis Smith who did the cover and Ted let it stay that way for artistic freedom. I don't think it comes from wanting to blaspheme but there is some logic to it that is probably easier to come up with from thinking outside of the religious box. I believe he thought to show how both the animal and Jesus were flesh and bones, similar to us. I know Ted's idea was to show that the image of Christ suffering on the cross isn't supposed to be clean and shiny and we should understand that his death was very painful, and he was criticizing the way we ignore the suffering he endured and want to look away from it. Jesus in flesh was built like us. Bones, nerves, flesh, blood, with the same experience of pain we have. Animals have bones, nerves, flesh and blood too, and they experience pain like we do. To show that I think Travis wanted to go beyond the skin of both the animal and Jesus, and he decided to show the blood and the bones of the animal, and the blood and the bones of Jesus to illustrate the point.

The point isn't to show that they both are a similar sacrifice to us, but the point is to show that we look away when the reality kicks in. We want these deaths to be sanitized for us so that we wouldn't have to encounter the brutal truth of suffering.

I don't think the intention was to show that Christ is rotting on the cross, just as the intention wasn't to show that even though the animal has his gut completely ripped of it can still be alive and standing. The point was just to bring suffering closer to us by showing both the animal and Christ were flesh and bones and capable of feeling incredible pain, which we don't want to think about when it comes to both the death of Jesus and the death of beef cattle.

But yeah, maybe it wasn't shown clear enough and went a bit too far with the shock factor.

The Bible says in: Isaiah 52:14
Isa 52:14 KJV As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: .

The Cat of Nine Tails, being embedded with metal, bone, and things made to grab onto the flesh and rip and tear it; and Jesus took all 40 lashes. Each 1 harder hit than the last, could easily have exposed His ribs. So, is it possible, that this artist portrayed the most accurate picture of Christ on the cross?

Lots of conjecture here. If this was the point it's making  no one was thinking it as everyone knows crucifixion was incredibly brutal. No matter the intent it's in poor taste.

Personally my biggest problem with the cover art is that it doesn't really reflect what the music in the album is. There are like maybe a couple of songs that have something that reflects the tone of the cover art.

True. I think a lot of people write off the album because they think it’s all animal rights songs, but it’s most definitely not.

Though tbf a lot of cover art only really reflects the title track

Lyrically yes (well, 86 Bullets is also an animal rights song), but when it comes to the music ignoring the lyrics there are only a few songs that get into the same place the darkness and grittiness of the cover implies. And none of them are fully like that. Even the title track gets into a complete different territory at the end.

I love the album nevertheless though. Not a single bad song in it. Not even a single average song. Aaron's songs are the best he's ever written too. Every song might not be great or excellent but even at worst they are above average. Some other kind of a cover would've been more fitting for the music though.

We can all hope that maybe the edgy nature of the cover makes some atheist in the future pick up the album from a flea market or something and maybe he'll get something to think about.

Lex Metalis wrote:

StevenCressler wrote:

Lex Metalis wrote:

Not the Slayer crop-top lol

But yeah, what is this cover

Lex Metalis wrote: