This isn't exactly relevant time wise, it's just I was listening to the album on Youtube and remembered this.
For the 50th anniversary of the album, Pink Floyd or whoever owns the rights, came out with that right image as their general look/promotional.
Many people including myself said it looks like they're catering to the "lgbtqi96sksdfj+++x^tothe3rdpower" crowd (tried to make sure I didn't miss any identities.
Twitter responses were like "You snowflake right wing morons, the rainbow was literally the album cover for Dark Side of the Moon"
I know...we all know. I've been into Pink Floyd since I was in like 6th grade. I had a dark side of the moon arm bracelet thingy I'd wear to middle school when I went through my "only wearing black + rocker accessories" cringy phase.
If the arm bracelet thing looked like the image on the right, I'd never wear it because it'd be gay looking.
It's a pure gaslight thing.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
I think it's the hue of colors chosen.
That left image, I picked the one with the brightest primaries on google I could find. There were other examples of less bright primaries, more faded. And even with the brightest I could find, it's not as bright as the right image. That right image looks like every June when every company looks like gay parade, where it's intentionally ugly.
I hate when lefty childfuckers use snowflake wrong. Snowflake is someone that thinks they're special for doing absolutely nothing which sums up leftism. It's rare that it applies to non leftists
The original album cover depicted visual impact over scientific accuracy. Snell’s law is more like Schnell's law with how the light bends into its visible spectrum for us to perceive.
The new one is gay, and not in the cool homosexual cutting wit humour kind of way, and is further removed from reality than anything the original could ever have imagined.
But hey, it's money and good times. Don't fret over it.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
The original design has perspective on the rainbow and it's also long enough that it doesn't parse as a flag. Meanwhile, the one in the circle parses as every corporate social media profile pic during pride month.
"You snowflake right wing morons, the rainbow was literally the album cover for Dark Side of the Moon"
I don't even agree to that. The presence of the prism gives context to the rainbow, so it's not just a rainbow. It's not "there's a rainbow," it's that there's a rainbow as a core piece of the art. It's an important distinction, in my opinion.
Which is why the 50 version is so bad; it loses the whole design, and replaces it with just a rainbow. Much easier to interpret as gay/political.
the image on the left is iconic, even people who don't know what it is remember seeing it before pride went insane. we all know it has nothing to do with the alphabet mafia.
the image on the right is a new image, and it features a rainbow. if the past 15 years of media has taught us anything, it's that rainbow means homosexuality.
It was undoubtedly an intentional choice. The designers of this shit don't have real jobs, they spend most of their time on their phones, on Reddit and Bluesky and wherever else. They were absolutely trying to invoke homo so they could play dumb and blame everyone else for thinking the homo worshippers were just being themselves, as they have been each and every day for over a decade now.
Point of pedantic graphic design: contemporary gay flag is six color whereas a rainbow is seven. Presence of an indigo stripe is the determining factor.
The Pink Floyd version was always using the gay color scheme.
We're generally talking about depictions in artwork and logos, where they have discrete bands. If we were discussing the continuous case, none of this conversation would have applied.
This isn't exactly relevant time wise, it's just I was listening to the album on Youtube and remembered this.
For the 50th anniversary of the album, Pink Floyd or whoever owns the rights, came out with that right image as their general look/promotional.
Many people including myself said it looks like they're catering to the "lgbtqi96sksdfj+++x^tothe3rdpower" crowd (tried to make sure I didn't miss any identities.
Twitter responses were like "You snowflake right wing morons, the rainbow was literally the album cover for Dark Side of the Moon"
I know...we all know. I've been into Pink Floyd since I was in like 6th grade. I had a dark side of the moon arm bracelet thingy I'd wear to middle school when I went through my "only wearing black + rocker accessories" cringy phase.
If the arm bracelet thing looked like the image on the right, I'd never wear it because it'd be gay looking.
It's a pure gaslight thing.
I don't know what makes the right image look so much like the gay flag whereas the original image doesn't conjur that even today.
I think it's the hue of colors chosen.
That left image, I picked the one with the brightest primaries on google I could find. There were other examples of less bright primaries, more faded. And even with the brightest I could find, it's not as bright as the right image. That right image looks like every June when every company looks like gay parade, where it's intentionally ugly.
I hate when lefty childfuckers use snowflake wrong. Snowflake is someone that thinks they're special for doing absolutely nothing which sums up leftism. It's rare that it applies to non leftists
it's part of their gas lights. when an honest person becomes indignant at the accusation of being dishonest, they call the honest person a snowflake.
The original album cover depicted visual impact over scientific accuracy. Snell’s law is more like Schnell's law with how the light bends into its visible spectrum for us to perceive.
The new one is gay, and not in the cool homosexual cutting wit humour kind of way, and is further removed from reality than anything the original could ever have imagined.
But hey, it's money and good times. Don't fret over it.
Exactly, the original album was clearly going for an easthetic, it looked good.
The right image is just, color 1, color 2, color 3,
Zero design. It looks like what a college student would whip up in photoshop in less than 5 minutes.
The original design has perspective on the rainbow and it's also long enough that it doesn't parse as a flag. Meanwhile, the one in the circle parses as every corporate social media profile pic during pride month.
I don't even agree to that. The presence of the prism gives context to the rainbow, so it's not just a rainbow. It's not "there's a rainbow," it's that there's a rainbow as a core piece of the art. It's an important distinction, in my opinion.
Which is why the 50 version is so bad; it loses the whole design, and replaces it with just a rainbow. Much easier to interpret as gay/political.
the image on the left is iconic, even people who don't know what it is remember seeing it before pride went insane. we all know it has nothing to do with the alphabet mafia.
the image on the right is a new image, and it features a rainbow. if the past 15 years of media has taught us anything, it's that rainbow means homosexuality.
It was undoubtedly an intentional choice. The designers of this shit don't have real jobs, they spend most of their time on their phones, on Reddit and Bluesky and wherever else. They were absolutely trying to invoke homo so they could play dumb and blame everyone else for thinking the homo worshippers were just being themselves, as they have been each and every day for over a decade now.
Point of pedantic graphic design: contemporary gay flag is six color whereas a rainbow is seven. Presence of an indigo stripe is the determining factor.
The Pink Floyd version was always using the gay color scheme.
It's not quite that simple. There have been various interpretations of the colors of the rainbow, and the official count has varied through the years.
Nah, I refuse to give them that. Nothing inherently political about a six-color rainbow, it just depends on the look you're going for.
That's why I specified the contemporary one.
Rainbows have either six colors, or infinite colors. Not seven.
If you count indigo, you also have to count red-orange, yellow-orange, yellow-green, blue-green, and violet-red, and that makes twelve colors.
EDIT: I let it slide with the Lantern Corps because they did something awesome with it.
We're generally talking about depictions in artwork and logos, where they have discrete bands. If we were discussing the continuous case, none of this conversation would have applied.
Nothing wrong with 12 colors, but less common.
It's a case of being over-sensitive to it after spending the last 5-6 years tilting at rainbow flags.