Retailers and labels shouldn’t interfere with artists’ work

Kanye West is not a happy man.

“Yoooo they banned my album cover!!!!!” West tweeted earlier this week. “Banned in the USA!!!” read one twitpic caption, and another tweet said, “In the 70s album covers had actual nudity … It’s so funny that people forget that … Everything has been so commercialized now.”

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, West’s new album, features a cover that represents two human-like monsters (or is it monster-like humans?) in a sexually suggestive position on a couch.

West’s tweet sent the media into a flurry as he contended that “they,” particularly the retail mega-corporation Wal-Mart, had banned his album from being stocked on shelves because of the cover art.

Well, as it turns out, none of this — as of yet, at least — is true. According to The Wall Street Journal, a Wal-Mart spokesperson denied any ban, stating the store “did not reject the cover artwork and it was never presented to us to view.”

The Los Angeles Times also reported that West’s label, Universal Music Group’s Island Def Jam, had only “strongly urged” West to use alternate art because of concerns about potential retailers’ boycotts.

So for now, it seems that we can dismiss this whole event as West being silly over the Internet. Right?

Maybe not. There might be a point to be made behind all this.

Big-name retailers have a huge impact on album sales. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 20 percent of CD sales in the United States; therefore, the threat of banning an album, any album, is significant. And so one has to ask: what kind of power are retailers holding over artists?

We tend to forget that musicians, at least in theory, are artists. And being an artist means that you have freedom of expression in the content and form of your work.

But it seems that more and more these days, outside influences are getting a say in what is sold and how. Although West’s album might not have been banned, his predicament mirrors circumstances presented to artists all the time:

Musician sends in explicit lyrics, suggestive cover art or unsavory thematic material.

Musician’s music label says, “If you changed X, this album might be more ‘successful’” (see: profitable), or it might say, “Let’s try not to get banned from stores.”

Musician changes original material, potentially warping the original vision.

This sequence of events is ludicrous when you compare it with other artistic forms. Imagine if Picasso had been “strongly urged” by a bunch of men in suits that his “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon,” which features five nude female prostitutes in an early Cubism style, needed some “alterations.”

That’s a laughable situation, of course, but at the risk of paralleling Picasso with Kanye West, what’s the difference? Fine art is art. Music is art. It’s all art. One form tends to consistently make more money than the other, but that’s really a red herring in the bigger issue of artistic freedom.

This “freedom” doesn’t necessarily include being outrageous just for the hell of it. I’m not sure anyone really needs to experience the sight of classic metal band Pantera’s “anal drill” on the original cover of 1994’s Far Beyond Driven. Thoughtful judgment is a good thing. And superficially explicit art without meaning is, well, meaningless. But outside judgment forced on an artist with good intentions? It just doesn’t seem very fair.

Wal-Mart is particularly good at this sort of manipulation. Not only does the retailer have a policy of only carrying albums that do not have explicit lyrical content, it also changes the names of song titles when it is deemed appropriate. Kurt Cobain is probably rolling in his grave at the thought of his song “Rape Me” being changed to “Waif Me.” “Waif Me?” Really: “Homeless Child Me.” Now I really understand what the song was trying to convey.

Cobain didn’t title the song “Rape Me” just to titillate his audience. He titled it that for a reason. And in the same way, Kanye West commissioned contemporary artist George Condo to design his album cover for a reason as well. The imagery is referenced thematically in his new singles such as “Monster” and “Runaway.” It makes sense.

Besides, is the album art even that controversial to begin with? It’s just silly that an executive had to “strongly urge” him to change it at the risk of losing sales. No wonder West went nuts on Twitter.

At the end of the day, retailers like Wal-Mart have to remember what their purpose is. The purpose of such a store isn’t to regulate or manipulate wholesomeness of products; it’s to sell them. If Wal-Mart is going to decide what’s good for us, shouldn’t it stop selling Twinkies too? Since when is a retail store a provider of life guidance?

This little incident is an interesting reminder of the threats facing the growth of a vibrant pop culture. God forbid that our nation’s children hear a curse word or see a nipple. Musicians, along with filmmakers, writers and other artists, have many things they should strive to do: to stimulate, to make a statement, to express, to create.

Worrying about the opinions of money-grubbing corporations? That shouldn’t ever be on the list.

Eddie Kim is a sophomore majoring in print journalism. His column, “Culture Clash,” runs Thursdays.