It’s funny cuz it’s true!

Hendrix was a little disappointed with the album’s cover art. Although he appreciated the symbolic design, he mentioned in an interview that it would have been more appropriate if the cover art showcased his American “Indian” heritage. The British Track records art department had independently chosen to use the current fad for all things Indian to create the cover, and thus the album’s cover has a photographed copy of a mass produced religious poster of the Hindu devotional painting known as Viraat Purushan-Vishnuroopam[citation needed] with a small, superimposed painting of the group by Roger Law. (from a photo portrait by Karl Ferris) blended in

I’m not even Christian and I know that you can’t glorify the Lord through service to Mammon. This is, at best, a post hoc rationalization and at worst a cynical ploy to disarm people’s guilt at succumbing to their baser consumerist instincts.

Which, I guess is essentially the story of Evangelical Christianity in America.

1) what may be offense to people in religion X may not be offensive to those not in religion X

2) what may be offensive to a subset of people i religion X may not be offensive to another subset of people in religion X

3) something that may be offensive to people in religion X may be demanded by the beliefs of people in religion Y, or compare two subsets of religion X who conflict on what is, and isn’t, offensive

in the last category i know plenty of christians, liberal and conserv., who are disgusted by “christian-themed” marketing. in contrast business persons who who are christian capitalists will say stuff like “my product is glorifying the lord!” as an unbeliever it can sometimes leave you confused.

That’s just how I roll.

Speaking of artwork, I’m loving the banner art that’s been added to the rotation. And! Lots of love to KXB for all the news postin’. KXB rocks!

As for the Jimi-god chucks, the value on the ones that did sell, just went up.

I think this is spot on.

“This stuff (taking artistic license with religious iconography) doesn’t insult me in the least as long as the intent behind it isn’t explicitly malicious or to stir up trouble.”

I think the disrespect/or lack thereof is sort of inherent in the design. It may not be malicious per se, but a design like this does imply that these kinds of images/deities are enough of a cheap kitsch that it can go on sneakers, toilets, or whatever else.

Its not the kind of thing I’d go out and protest (mainly because I think it is extremely important to keep expression and speech as free as possible), and I think the Rajan Zed types are one too many in this world.

However,I’d also be lying if I said that I wouldn’t think that a person who thinks this design is great has a very low opinion of what my beliefs are and images that I consider sacred.

But again, if that’s someone’s opinion, then what can I do? To each his own.