____twoism

Longtime lurker here, first post.

1. I contend that BoC abstracted / damaged / kaleidoscoped the photos in the artwork in order to make it almost impossible to find the source material. As we all know, those are themes in their work -- applying effects, code, etc to signals such that the output cannot be mapped onto the input's initial form.
2. Spending a bunch of time trying to figure out the identity of a little girl's face is completely ridiculous, and IMHO totally side-steps the emotional reaction intended by BoC.
3. Making claims about pedophilia is equally, if not more, stupid. Especially because those children are obviously adults now... lol. It's stupid to call "pedophile", and it's stupid to respond to it, any more than a dismissive whatever.

I suppose that I echo u/mr3 's charge to "go find that shit out", if you care enough... but I guess I'd like to ask OP.. what do you expect to gain out of finding the "film origin" of the album artwork? If these photos aren't from popular culture, then your search will yield nothing. And obviously a good 95% of the emotional reaction of these photos is based in their syntactic content, not in what they "mean", or where they're "from."

I'll be posting more, so I guess I'll see you soon.

Remember someone who was related to the girl or one of the kids posted on this thread in late may I believe talking about a new album in June and was right... it's just a family member or friend of the brothers' and that's it. It's just someone they knew and they took a picture/used a picture of them for artwork.

thepastinsidepressant wrote:meh, these are more than likely random old slides they found in a car boot, nobody will ever know.
same with campfire, all random. go to ebay, theres loads of this stuff for sale. it's what artists, designers, illustrators have done for years, they source things from all over the place no matter how obscure and change it to fit the purpose.

don't go looking too much into it.

I don't know about the young users on here, but us older guys have a lot of old family photos. I have a ton of old 8mm reels from when I was kid in addition to a lot of photo albums. Why isn't it possible BoC used their own family photos?

polar sky wrote:

thepastinsidepressant wrote:meh, these are more than likely random old slides they found in a car boot, nobody will ever know.
same with campfire, all random. go to ebay, theres loads of this stuff for sale. it's what artists, designers, illustrators have done for years, they source things from all over the place no matter how obscure and change it to fit the purpose.

don't go looking too much into it.

I don't know about the young users on here, but us older guys have a lot of old family photos. I have a ton of old 8mm reels from when I was kid in addition to a lot of photo albums. Why isn't it possible BoC used their own family photos?

Yeah, wouldn't you sue the shit out of the artist, with its weird pagan music, to unknowingly put a picture of you as a baby on the cover?

JESUSANDHOES wrote:3. Making claims about pedophilia is equally, if not more, stupid. Especially because those children are obviously adults now... lol. It's stupid to call "pedophile", and it's stupid to respond to it, any more than a dismissive whatever.

jesus dude....like im serious about that....thats just called "blowing shit outta proportion".
if you seriously think im suggesting someone would openly do that....then you are as stupid as my initial response.

its a rant that came out based on the lunacy of the thread.

c'mon dude....grow a pair.