froufox

The effect is unknown.

Who else is mesmerized by these outlandish legs? I still cannot tell if they are real or the artist just stretched them—they are uncannily straight, and where are the knees? But it's Björk, the well-known shapeshifting queen, and everything is possible.

She appears before us in a naughty latex suit, yet she clearly not in a playful mood. Her face expresses deepest sorrow, and there's a gaping hole in her chest. Is it a vaginal symbol, or an open wound? Is she covered with dandelion fluff, or pierced by a myriad of arrows like St. Sebastian? Every detail in the picture holds multiple meanings—and Björk herself does too: she's a lover, she's a martyr.

I genuinely like this cover (especially that fresh palette of colors, ahh) but perhaps I like others slightly more. Maybe it's the darkness radiating from Björk here that alienates me?..

7/10, 7th place.

I've been posting through mobile (Boost client) and always chosen only URL as a content of my post. And it resulted to a post with an empty thumbnail on web (you have to click on it to see the image). Does anyone use this client? What's the best in your opinion?

Attention 196ers. Let's all stop and listen to the song Shakira — Hips Don't Lie (feat. Wyclef Jean). Tomorrow I'll check this song number of plays and tell you how many of us are here

If you haven't seen this masterpiece (since it hasn't been posted here yet)

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/63670168

I'm officially crossing a border between covers I don't like and ones I really enjoy—with Björk, there's no middle ground. And her second album greets us first on that new territory.

Aesthetically, it looks amazing—dynamic, vivid, striking. When I first saw it, I thought she's standing in Times Square with a long-brimmed hat behind her head. That image still lingers in my mind even though I now see it's not a hat but a whirling halo, not the actual Times Square but a collage of motion-blurred abstract images.

"Motion" is a key theme of the cover: it's in the background, in Björk's waving hair, and in her brilliantly captured face—it's not a settled emotion, it's a transition between fear and resilience, she looks both vulnerable and locked in.

The last funny detail about is Björk's outfir which resembles a postcard, echoing the record's name.

Okay, after that waterfall of compliments—isn't this the perfect cover? It would be, if not for one thing: you could easily replace Björk with another alt-pop girl—say, Carly Rae Jepsen or Caroline Polachek—and it would still work. It's the least björky album cover of them all. Decent, but not personal enough to rank higher in my rating.

So, 6/10 and the 8th place.

This is a challenging one to review. You take a glance at this cover, and your dopamine immediately surges from the music that starts playing in your head (pick one of the bangers you like). But let's set aside the sound and focus solely on what our eyes can see. The cover depicts Björk as a strange creature in what appears to be a Japanese empress outfit. I say creature because she's clearly not a human: look at her body structure, the shoulders, the neck, and the predatory alien eyes. That cover screams "weird", and the choice of colors, textures and patterns only emphasize that. But it is clearly designed that way. Björk mocks the formula when you put a sexy feminine, girl on the cover to attract an audience and boost sales. She followed it before, but here she finally cut ties with mainstream pop.

[Men] can be silly, fat, funny, intelligent, hardcore, sensual, all those different things, philosophical. But with women they always have to be feminine. Feminine, feminine. ... I just like to see women who can be characters and can be themselves.

So here she is, take it or leave it. Why do I rate the cover so low then? Isn't it genius and deserves strong 10? I'm trying to be honest with myself: I don't like it, really. Even if we leave out the questionable reference to Japanese culture, it is still repulsive and ugly. It is not beautiful; it is not even good. And to be honest, I also don't see any connections with the music behind it. The Homogenic album cover is bad on purpose, and giving it a high rating would be an insult to the very Björk's idea. So, 4/10.

Disclaimer: this rating is totally subjective; if you disagree with me—I welcome you to the comments to express your point of view, as it equally matters

Let's start! Here Björk appears in the form of some kind of a huge ocean mollusk, the gorgeous underwater queen. She looks very confident and content; in her right hand she holds a flute demonstrating its six holes, which amazingly resonate with other two ones in her throat—serving as gills for her and another whimsical musical instrument for us. That strong attention to the flute is not accidental: Björk shows us what is the key to the record, what—along with dolphin and orca's sounds—sets the main tone of it, and what you must follow through to space out and enjoy the music... Returning to the cover itself, there are several important details emphasizing that she's exploring themes of being a woman and a mother. First, an interesting organ resembling woman's genitalia—Björk doesn't hide it and displays it right on her forehead, making a provocative gesture. Second, an embryo (it looks quite human-like or at least mammal-like, but i'm not a biologist) which is hiding in her collar. But what sadly breaks the vibe of the cover for me is Björk' hairstyle. It strongly associates with goth/emo subculture; i would imagine a tempting vamp lady having it, but not a sea empress. Moreover, it doesn't fit the sensual and ethereal ambient tones of the album.

In summary, this cover shows good attention to detail and gives a peek of what to expect from the music. But unfortunately it doesn't work for me as a single comprehensive piece of art. Score: 4/10