This is just pure cowardice: > As for Crumb’s depiction of that scene from the musical [the viciously racist depiction of a black woman], lets not even go ther

This is just pure cowardice: > As for Crumb’s depiction of that scene from the musical [the viciously racist depiction of a black woman], lets not even go there. Suffice it to say that a cover like that will not see the light of day today. Especially if you're not completely avoiding Crumb's views on race: > Asked about how a white guy connects so deeply with black music created in the 1930s, he answered: “I don’t know. There’s something so raw, kind of beauty that speaks to me in a deep and direct way. Personally I barely even know any black people and I can’t relate to lower class black culture very well at all. It’s very alien to me in a certain way, and people I’ve known from that black culture, I’ve never been able to get very close to, because their values are so different. So what is it about their music that speaks so directly? It has some universal appeal because it has had such a big influence on the music of the entire world.” There's a straight line between "lower class black culture is very alien to me" and using darky iconography the same year MLK was shot - even in 1968 this was a deliberately racist provocation. There's also a line between Janis Joplin as a white blues singer and her approval of the artwork. And of course there's the straightest of lines between ignoring Crumb's racism while uncritically hagiographizing his connection to black music. You can still tell a sympathetic story about Crumb: he is far from the only young avant garde American artist to use racist rhetoric to elicit cheap thrills and controversy. And unlike, say, Quentin Taratino, Crumb's later work shows a sincere understanding of and repentance for his earlier dreck. But you can't claim to be telling the story of the album cover if you're whitewashing its most controversial aspect. What you're doing is spinning a fairy tale.