The "Controversial Cover Art" thread

[Emplate]

It wasn't until a few days later that I saw the Decibel interview, and got a bit incensed about the utter bollocks they were talking. For example; "she will never lose the innocence of childhood"? She lost that innocence in the last few seconds of her life when her father butchered her.

I'm not exactly sure how the term "innocence" should be considered here, but I'm curious, how do you see someone killing her affecting her presumed innocence?

The other point here is the actual victim and death itself. I obviously would understand that for example relatives would feel horrible about the usage of the said picture, but I can't help but feel that the reaction of the outsiders has something to do with death being so unfamiliar with the modern day society. It's as if death would've been cleaned away from the community, and we want no reminders of it. Of course such a violent death is a bit different matter, but would it be possible to think of it as paying tribute to the victim? These kind of cases usually tend to revolve around the murderer, so maybe we need a reminder from time to time, that there's an actual victim here and these kind of horrific things happen in our world.

It would've been a nice tribute, wouldn't it? Like I said above, you've managed to find a justification there that the band couldn't..

Heh, well, yeah, possibly :) But I guess art ceases to belong solely to its creator once it's been let loose to the world. I believe that at some point other interpretations may be just as valuable as those of the artist's. With that said, I still think there was nothing wrong with the band's reply.