Roots Manuva: Slime and Reason

« Joy Electric: My Grandfather, The Cubist

Death Cab For Cutie: Transatlanticism »

Roots Manuva: Slime and Reason

It’s been a while since Oscar & Ewan have emailed us and I was pleased to see they hadn’t forgotten us when they sent through Roots Manuva’s latest album “Slime and Reason”. Probably the only thing I dislike about the album is the title :)

I’m not sure if this is O&E’s thing but they really like to make stuff and photograph it. It’s this manual labor that really makes their work stand out. O&E were also responsible for one of our most popular covers from last year Slime and Reason is no exception. This also makes their work look like fun to work on. I can just imagine their work spaces being filled with half finished bits and pieces and left overs from photo shoots.

While it initially looks like a 3D rendering, you can see (on closer inspection) that it’s actually a plaster sculpture. If Roots had of been American you’d just need to throw a few big booty, bikini babes in his slime pool and you’d be ready to go.

Also I can’t help but feel it’s like the monkey brains scene from Indiana Jones.

“Wiley’s Play Time is Over”.

Here’s some insight from the guys on the process of creating the album cover. This was originally sent to Merge Magazine as part of a Q&A. Not that I can find it on their site to link up so I’m using it here.

“The title was the idea, we took a very literal translation. There were other considerations too that helped, Roots Manuva’s past two covers have had him facing forward, and centrally framed. so although this is aesthetically a departure from those covers, it has kept a link. also the plaster bust shows a defined and prestigious character, where as the slime takes the edge off it, making it contemporary and quite jovial, which we feel suits this album. Lyrically often the listener is wondering just what is inside his head. Our past covers have been quite visually busy, but we aimed to make this one very stark and striking, recognizable from a distance and quite iconic.”

“The building of the head was a long process, and one that we weren’t quite sure how to approach. We thought originally that we would commission a sculptor to make the bust, but that was extremely expensive and the result may not have looked exactly like Roots, then we thought about a live cast of the head in plaster, but they can often look quite ‘dead’, the face can sag in the plaster and there isn’t much flexibility with the expression.

So after some looking around we found out about 3D scanning and rapid prototyping. This was the best option, the scanning process is very quick and accurate, and having the 3D model in the computer meant we could edit the bowl into the head at that stage, before the rapid prototyping. So we got the rapid prototyped model, then commissioned a sculptor to cast it in plaster. this was quite a nervous stage as we had to make a mother cast with the rapid prototyped model, which we had to smash to get out of the cast, so we had no original left. the sculptor then had to go on holiday, so we had to removed the plaster head from the mother cast with no previous experience of sculpting, then sand down the head and sculpt the eyes. The green slime was 3x bottles of green Aloe Vera hand soap.”

Here’s some work in progress and behind the scenes photos from this long process.

The photos above look like a dodgy backyard porno? Not that I’ve really watched much dodgy backyard porn.

And lastly here’s what Roots would like like if Roots Manuva and the Pillsbury Doughboy had a bukkake session.

The single artwork for “Buff Nuff” (above) and “Again and Again” (below) all share the same sculpture shot at different angles.

I would have liked to have just seen different things inside his head like the behind the scenes photo with the bananas below.

The fact you get a very quick 3D scan would have made it easy to start working on the layout quickly. So it’s kind of rapid prototyping design aswell. Here’s a few test 3D renders showing what a Roots Manuva easter egg would look like and what Roots would look like if he was cast in the Smurfs movie. Reggae Smurf? A lesser design agency would have just used this as their cover. (And it still would have been better than many others out there)

Note:O&E both only graduated in 2007. So they are not only talented mofos but young too. Definetly ones to keep an eye on.

You can buy the album from Ninjatune via Root’s official website.

You can also buy a green plastic wallet but I think that’s one of the worst pieces of merch I’ve seen in a while.

P.S: I’ll spell check this post tomorrow. I did a little midnight blogging and there’s always mistakles

MARC JACOBS for LOUIS VITTON
PIC> REF;> chuvachienes.com/ category/tag/fashion/

But this is a totally different story than from exposing yourself without that having anything to do with the ' storyline' to promote FASHION just like in this photo . I'm not sure that Marc Jacobs would find it neccessary, or any other male model for that matter , the need to put himself on' display' just to satisfy people's curiosity. The shoot is done in the good spirit of fun .... well thought! You don't want to alienate your potential costumer .... all about IMAGE and TASTE ...

REF;> chuvachienes.com/ category/tag/fashion/

Marc Jacobs Pays Naked Homage to Stephen Sprouse

Marc Jacobs, who has designed a line of items for Louis Vuitton in honor of the late designer Stephen Sprouse, shows off the concept in a nude photo for Harper’s Bazaar shot by Terry Richardson.
WWD reports: “Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton are paying homage to Stephen Sprouse. To show their admiration for the late designer and artist, next month, Jacobs, Vuitton’s creative director, is using his hit 2001 collaboration with Sprouse for a new, limited edition collection of accessories and ready-to-wear. Jacobs even doffed his duds again, posing in the nude painted in Sprouse’s graffiti for Harper’s Bazaar’s January issue.”

This article accompanies
Alice's Mirrors

Art, Pornography and Picasso

It’s fair to say the silly debate between Art vs Pornography is now over.

For all the millions of words defending or collapsing the difference, there is no Art, no Pornography. There is only art with sexual content or art without it. Not that art galleries and museums can be seen acknowledging this but the Web makes it a moot point.

Take for instance the erotic art of Picasso that he did between 1900 and 1903, when he was in his early Twenties. A regular in the brothels and bars of Barcelona and Paris, Picasso was in his Blue Period, hormones raging, and his paintings and drawings are full of erotic content. But these works are rarely if ever put on display. Why not? Are they Pornography and not Art?

The ironically titled self-portrait above is La Douleur (“pain”). How old is he here?

This painting has never been displayed at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which owns it, and when it surfaced in 2007 in London, presumably it was because the Europeans are more open-minded about this sort of thing. Still, the Barbican exhibition (titled Seduced: Art and Sex From Antiquity to Now) was restricted to those 18 and over. But a Met curator and Picasso scholar told the press: "It’s not a very good painting, that’s the main thing… If it didn’t have a sensational subject, nobody would look at it." Is he missing the point deliberately? What he is saying is this: it’s not great Art, therefore it is Pornography. What he really means is: It's Pornography; therefore it's not great Art."

The above sketch from the same period is known as Angel Fernández de Soto with a Woman. Picasso and de Soto were friends and shared a studio at the time (de Soto was killed in the Spanish Civil War decades later).

For Picasso, art was political and satirical. It broke down taboos. One of the biggest taboos was sex and it was guarded by fear – the fear that a sexualized image could be threatening. Rightly, he found this idea amusing.

See another image of Angel Fernández de Soto here. Another Picasso here.

WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?

“I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

That famous statement, uttered by the late Justice Potter Stewart in 1973 when faced with a case involving obscenity, illustrates the difficulty of trying to determine what constitutes obscene or pornographic content. The term “pornography” has no well-defined meaning, certainly no legal definition. And if a Supreme Court justice had trouble defining the nature of sexually explicit material, how easy is it for the rest of us—each of whom looks at the world in a different way? Lack of consensus is one reason the subject of pornography is such a contentious legal issue.

You Must Decide for Yourself
When it comes to judging content, your definition of what’s unacceptable, pornographic, or even damaging to your children might well differ from someone else’s. One parent might feel that exposure to violence is much more harmful to children than exposure to sexually explicit material. Another might believe that sexually explicit material poses a moral danger. Some feel it’s a matter of degree, others remain unsure. Furthermore, not everyone agrees on what material is sexually explicit.* A line drawing of a sexual organ in a medical textbook might be regarded differently than a photograph of the same organ in an adult magazine.

Even if the distinction were made between extremely sexually explicit imagery and, say, responsible information on sexual health, there are ambiguous areas that are often the center of parental, school, church, and civic debate. These include: sex education, dimensions of sexual desire, sexual orientation, sexually suggestive advertisements, content from mainstream art and science, and celibacy sicussions.

Topics of Contention

• Sex education: This is a highly contentious subject that some public schools avoid teaching because parents have such different perspectives on what information is appropriate for young people. The idea of providing educational material about sexuality often incites debate. back to top
  
  
• Dimensions of sexual desire: Opinions differ on how people should behave romantically and sexually. The traditional “script” depicts romantic heterosexuality, in which the male is active and powerful, both in pursuit of a female partner and in sexual activity. The female is often portrayed as passive and coy, whose power lies in luring men. Materials that explore nontraditional roles, thereby broadening choices that people make about their sexuality, often cause controversy. back to top
  
  
• Sexual orientation: Some materials depict or describe what it means to be lesbian or gay in sexual orientation. What for some people is a description of positive feelings about one’s orientation might for others be an endorsement of an unacceptable lifestyle. Some parents, however, find such material useful in helping their children explore aspects of their own sexuality. back to top
  
  
• Sexually suggestive advertisements: Mainstream media have grown more sexually suggestive. Materials such as Victoria’s Secret ads and Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issues, for example, make some parents uneasy and others angry about what they consider inappropriate material. Others consider this material to be completely harmless, or they aren’t offended by how it depicts women. back to top
  
  
• Content from mainstream art and science: Some people might consider some graphic elements used in these disciplines pornographic. For example, a plaque carried on Pioneer 10, the first space probe to leave the solar system, was called pornographic by some because it included nude human figures. Others object to images of classical Greek and Roman statues or other depictions of nudity; for example, Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. And there are parents who don’t consider any of this improper. back to top
  
  
• Celibacy discussions: Underage adolescents wishing to remain celibate might engage in sexually explicit discussions with like-minded others in order to deal with questions and feelings associated with managing their sexual desire and dealing with peer and media pressure. back to top
  

*On this Web site, NetSafeKids uses the term “sexually explicit material” to mean material—text-based, visual, or audio—that depicts sexual behavior or acts, or that exposes the reproductive organs of the human body. From common usage, “pornography” can be seen as usually involving sexually explicit materials.

What is pornography?

Before discussing pornography on the Internet, it is useful to discuss what is meant by the term pornography. Defining pornography is complicated mainly because the way it is used in common language or defined in dictionaries is much different than the legal definition of the term (Easton 1998, 605). Generally speaking, pornography should be differentiated from obscenity, which is associated with things that are some how repulsive to the senses and is the term most often used in laws dealing with illegal pornography (Easton 1998, 605).

Pornography

Pornography is easily recognized but is often difficult to define concisely. The word pornography originates from the Greeks who defined it as writing about prostitutes (Easton 1998, 605). The Canadian Dictionary of the English Language defines pornography as "sexually explicit material that sometimes equates sex with power and violence." (1997). This definition, by specifically including the concepts of power and violence, is perhaps too restrictive. Pornography has also been defined as "sexually explicit material that subordinates women through pictures or words" (Easton 1998, 605). This definition, by strictly associating pornography with the subordination of women, may also be too narrow. The broadest way to define pornography is as a sexually explicit depiction.

A good definition using this approach is from The Encyclopedia of Ethics, and defines pornography as "the sexually explicit depiction of persons, in words or images, created with the primary, proximate aim, and reasonable hope, of eliciting significant sexual arousal on the part of the consumer of such materials." (VanDeBeer 1992, 991)

This definition is necessarily broad and covers most dictionary definitions of the term and how it is understood in general use. It is also clear from this definition that not all pornography is illegal, as is clearly demonstrated by looking at the magazine rack of many Canadian corner stores, or associated with power and violence. It may also be seen to include material defined as erotic or materials defined as erotica, although there is no agreement on whether it does or not. However, some material that falls under this definition is illegal and needs to be distinguished from the more general definition used above.

Previous

Next