Rihanna’s assy Rolling Stone cover: tacky or enchanting?

rihanna21

Several commenters yelled at me when I put the link to this Rolling Stone cover in yesterday’s links, describing it as “amazing” and perhaps even “iconic”. My point was that it’s really one of the most striking cover shots Rihanna has ever done, and from a celebrity/entertainer who considers herself a powerful visual artist, that’s saying something. Most of the imagery that Rihanna has used over the past few years has left me cold – she’s gone through a bondage-y, domination/submission phase, she’s played around with the idea of making herself into living, breathing Pop Art, and when all else has failed, she’s just thrown on a giant Kool-Aid colored wig and some biscuit-flashing dress and called it a day. As I said, those images don’t really matter to me, visually. I don’t find them powerful, or interesting, or eye-catching, or even artistic or original.

But this… is interesting. To me, at least. I find myself fascinated by her ass, and enchanted by those faux-shorts. They’re metallic, right? It’s not, like, treated denim. They’re actually some kind of metal made to look like denim. And the way it’s cut on her hip… I could stare at this cover for ten minutes and still not figure it out. It’s like they’re metallic biscuit-covers, but they were made specifically for Rihanna’s biscuits. Couture biscuit-covers/vagina-and-ass drapes. And I’m still looking!

Anyway, there aren’t any excerpts from Rihanna’s Rolling Stone interview… yet. They’ll come out in the next few days.

rihanna11

Photos courtesy of Dlisted/Rolling Stone.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

71 Responses to “Rihanna’s assy Rolling Stone cover: tacky or enchanting?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. yeah that ass thing fascinates me too. though it’s just a nice cover, can’t see anything too artistic about it still.

  2. Sally says:

    I think it’s (thin) metallic denim. Anyhow, that is a good shot of her ass! Tacky, but the ass looks good.

  3. Flan says:

    Boring and she’s not relevant anymore.

  4. CarinC4 says:

    I have to give it to her, she’s REALLY pretty….but the outfit is still tacky- metallic faux shorts or real shorts.
    Consider it, if heidi montag, kim k, miley cyrus or even vanessa hudgens wore this outfit on a magazine pictorial, no one would have a problem saying it’s tacky or slutty.

    But if lady gaga wore those same shorts, it would have been called “artistic and edgy”…

    What’s the difference, different body shapes for different outfits?

    Sidenote-
    I think it says something when singers dress provocatively or nearly nude all the time, especially during concerts….it’s more than their usual casual attire and “costume wear”.

    These clothes (or lack of them) are “hiding” or making up for their lack of talent.

  5. malachais says:

    tacky, her image is all that people are interested in.

  6. fancyamazon says:

    I thought you were being really sarcastic. :)

  7. Quest says:

    OMG the fashion designers ran out of material before the photo-shoot. DAMN!!!

  8. Solveig says:

    Best shot of Sideshow Bob ever.

  9. Muffy says:

    Metal daisy dukes and Bozo’s hair, you think that’s hot, really? I know she has a great body, but meh!

  10. Jackson says:

    Meh. It’s ok. Again, the clown hair is a joke. It detracts from anything pretty about her for me. Although I like the curl in this version of clown hair. And what is that ‘Queen of Pain’ referring to on the cover? Her music isn’t what I’d call angsty. Please tell me it’s not the Chris Brown drama again. Issues with her father maybe? IDK.

  11. chris says:

    Enchanting (and slightly tacky-LOL). She’s so beautiful. I loved her Vogue cover much more although she did a weird pose. But her hair and dress were gorgeous.

  12. Isabel says:

    Amazing and iconic? Seriously?? Are we talking about the same cover?

    She looks like she pulled clothing out of the trash bin of a fire-damaged Hot Topic, then flashed her ass. I am really at a loss for what is so amazing about this.

  13. Brittney says:

    I love her, and in person she’s sweet (or was before she hit super-stardom), but her S&M reaction to being so victimized just made me want to wrap my arms around her. Everyone heals in their own way, but she’s been sending such mixed messages to young girls about domestic violence.

    And then for Rolling Stone to call her the Queen of Pain? Seriously? The woman whose beating was made public? That’s one cover I’d re-think.

  14. serena says:

    I like her long curly red (?) hair, she’s so beautiful.

  15. samihami says:

    Looks like the cover of a men’s magazine. A cheap one.

  16. Rasputina says:

    I don’t find anything artistic about this shot. It’s not enchanting either. It’s just a picture of a red-haired black woman in questionable clothing, trying to flash stab-me-sexy glances.

  17. Kaye1 says:

    I think this picture is only “amazing” and “iconic” to men who look at it and feel a twitching in their pants.

  18. RHONYC says:

    hells bells, that looks like a ‘source’ magazine cover if you ask me.

    classy. ;-)

  19. chartreuseoak says:

    From the waist up she looks fine but the waist down looks weird. Too much photoshop? I don’t know but those shorts look unreal like body paint or something.

  20. Motor35 says:

    when will she realize she looks just like sideshow bob? she looks awful. i guess i am tired of the lady gaga-assflash. i am totally over it.

  21. PrettyTarheel says:

    Personally, I find it appealing, edgy, and unique. At least it’s not Blake Lively making me snore. And the fact that everyone is reacting, positive or negative, is telling.

  22. baby says:

    iconic? helll no. ugh can we be done with her already? seriously, i’m so sick of her. i used to find a few of her songs catchy. but beyond that shes mediocre, at best, musically. visually, she tries way too hard and at this point not only is it tacky but boring. trying to make up for the lack of talent i guess. in general i find her to be contrived.

  23. Eve says:

    Nothing original here, but she’s got a nice, round ass. If she was bending over, that could be the cover of any Brazilian men’s magazine (for the last 25 years).

  24. fabchick says:

    I like it. She’s a pretty girl even with the crazy hair. I like her because she dares to be different. I love Beyonce but she has looked the same since 1999. Rihanna switches it up for every album like Madonna used to do.

  25. sandra says:

    that ass is waaayyyy photoshopped

  26. CarinC4 says:

    @PrettyTarheel

    The reason everyone is “reacting” like this (positive or not) is because of the choice of words Kaiser used to describe the cover- “iconic and amazing”…….words that seem to be the total opposite for most commenters here.

    You know whats funny tho? That exact pose and similar outfit has been probably used in Penthouse, Maxim, Playboy, Source and whatever men’s magazine…..so why is it “fashionable” here on Rolling Stone?

  27. Susan says:

    She’s beautiful, but this look is trashy in a low rent sort of way.

    And I want to see a pic of those awful metallic daisy dukes all by themselves! For some reason the lighting in that pic makes me wonder if it’s not shopped to add more ass.

  28. OtherChris says:

    It’s so photoshopped it looks more like a painting. We’ve all seen her butt in candid shots-it only bears a slight resemblance to this butt.

  29. Cat says:

    Typical. When don’t we see her ass? That’s a better question.

  30. Macey says:

    totally agree with CarinC4 and Baby up there.
    She really has nothing else to offer than a nice ass, makes sense they want her to display it as much as possible. It does keep the attention away from the fact that she cant sing without the help of auto-tune. She’s nothing more than a puppet-like pop tart.

  31. mia girl says:

    Iconic?! Amazing?! Sure, amazingly awful.

    @fancyamazon… I also thought Kaiser was being sarcastic yesterday!

  32. Kaiser says:

    Okay, so very few people agree with me! That’s fine, different strokes, etc. I love this cover, and I think it’s one of her best.

  33. LadyBert62 says:

    To me, it is just more of the usual trash/slut image she wants to project.

  34. coexxi says:

    super-tacky… this girl clearly doesn’t go for the “class” look

  35. K-MAC says:

    love it! ASSTASTIC! seriously, this woman does it for me. She is all sorts of a mess and hot and continues to be a success no matter what comes her way

  36. fancyamazon says:

    @ mia girl : ) Was starting to think I was the only one : )

  37. kelbear says:

    At first I thought the shorts were painted on.

  38. bre says:

    hey, rihanna? wanna /really/ shock everybody?

    go back to this:
    http://content6.clipmarks.com/clog_clip_cache/amplify.com/83A35010-41DE-4620-BAEE-A884CBA6C43E/0C724377-C673-4B50-BDC6-651BB86424CB

    i mean, seeing you look like a normal person? they’ll never know what hit ‘em.

  39. Mika says:

    Why do we care? She’s not the artistic director of Rolling Stone. She showed up and did what she was told, and contributed a fine ass. She contributes the music and the story, the cover is not on her at all.

  40. JustBe says:

    I really don’t get why this cover would be considered artistic or iconic in any way.

    It’s just another pop tart channeling a stripper or street walker. Seriously, you could drive passed your local hooker stroll and see a version of this ‘outfit’ on display. Is it artistic for prostitutes to wear this outfit or does the art label only come into play because Rolling Stone chose to display this outfit on their cover?

    I think given that she’s a young artist with a young fan base, it’s disgusting that a major magazine publisher (that is not specifically targeted to the male gender) would put this shot on their cover.

    I’m so disgusted with the constant ‘woman as sexual object’ meme. It’s not imaginative, artistic or new. It’s been the same theme now for longer than I care to remember. I no that Rihanna and other women are sexual beings, but that can’t be all that’s there.

  41. the original bellaluna says:

    What in the air-brushed hell is going on with her ass and that sad attempt at shorts?!? Looks like she’s wearing daisy-dukes (made out of auto paint that’s still wet) that were attacked by the Iron Giant when he got hungry!

  42. alma says:

    bozo hair! lmbo i knew i had seen that hair do before!!

    i don’t like it. esp because a lot of little girls look up to her

  43. Eleonor says:

    Photoshop.
    And her clownesque hair, that’s all I see.

  44. Ally says:

    I suppose it could have had a Farrah Fawcett red bikini poster vibe without those particular shorts and that angle.

    As it is, it’s Ronald McDonald is down on his luck and turning tricks.

  45. hatekyle says:

    she kinda looks like the spawn of Carrot Top! she’s become a spectacle!

  46. curmudgeon says:

    I don’t know why but this chick is on my ever growing go away list. I think its mostly she’s just everywhere and I think she is beautiful yet musically average.

  47. jover says:

    We all know RS has been going downhill for at least a decade – so why not put a trashy, contrived, auto-tuned pop tart on their cover – from RS’s perspective this is an upgrade from the Snooki cover – and RS wonders why they are tanking.

  48. melinda says:

    There is so much photo shop going on there. That’s why it’s mesmorizing. Looks cheap.

  49. sassenach says:

    I am not quite sure why this is being regarded as sleezy or slutty? When you see a celeb or model in a bikini on a magazine cover is that slutty too?

    Seriously why is Sports Illustrated and Shape magazine ok for baring all of your body in a string bikini but wearing Daisy Dukes and a tank top tacky?

  50. Isa says:

    I kind of feel like it should be the cover of some men’s flesh magazine.

    But her ass is amazing.

  51. ZZ says:

    If I saw a talented musician posing like that on a Rolling Stones cover, I’d be offended, but seeing that this is Rihanna, it’s all okay. She was never about the music anyway. And neither is Rolling Stone. So it’s all good.

    EDIT: Wow, I just read that bit on side about The Kill Team. Don’t know if it’s true but it’s definitely… interesting.

  52. Jeri says:

    The material is Chain-mail like the Knights of King Arthur wore(or that’s what it was called elsewhere).

  53. Bodhi says:

    I don’t give a shit about Rihanna, I want to read the Robbie Robertson article! I LOVE The Band!!

  54. So-and-so says:

    Rolling Stone treats male musicians seriously and female musicians like cheese cake. This makes you happy?

    Wait, is Rihanna a musician? Maybe Rolling Stone just treats cheese cake like cheese cake.

  55. ADS says:

    @ 57. Remember a teenage britney on RS cover in the 90′s? Laying on a bed with come hither eyes and her teletubby dolls. Real subtle. Women who are deigned important enough to make the cover are there to shift copies. Plus they usually have to be a hot piece to be granted the privilege. Lovely modern way of thinking of course. However, it is duly noted that Miss Fenty currently has a very nice and well made pop album to promote and a very nice ass too. What’s not to celebrate?

  56. ordinarygirl86 says:

    This is NOT tacky for Rolling Stone! I mean at least Rihanna has clothes on which is more then I can say for when Rosario Dawson and Rose Mcgowan posed together naked covering their bits with bullets, or Christina barely covered her naked self with a guitar, or Katy in bra n panties!

    She looks great and that ass is my new inspiration when I don’t feel like going to the gym- damn!

  57. ordinarygirl86 says:

    I hope this isn’t like the banned Lane Bryant lingerie commercial incident last year when it wasn’t about what the models were wearing but more about the body that was wearing them. I mean Lady Gaga posed in a thong and a machine gun bra and nobody was offended/shocked/upset by her ass…

  58. beth says:

    phwoarrr, makes me wanna slap that ass………………

    i’m not gay! i’m not gay!

  59. harfang says:

    Rolling Stone can no longer have a woman on their cover without this kind of presentation, and that irritates me a lot. But in this case I’m glad. Rihanna is hot no matter what, but this is extra smokin’.

  60. Dudette says:

    She has a smoking body. Wow.

  61. Laura says:

    Yeah, i’m failing to see whats so artistic and groundbreaking about this cover. Any girl from any mens magazine could do the same, theres nothing amazing about a girl looking like a hooker.

  62. beth says:

    i really don’t mind the ‘slut-look’ as long as it stays mostly just a look – unless we’re seriously repressed or asexual, we’re all a little bit of a slut inside. we should be. how boring we would be….

  63. Vicki. says:

    Loose the red hair, you’re not pretty enough to have bozo the clown hair. DumbAss…pun intended.

  64. Fire says:

    She has a “smokin body” after the graphic “artist” worked on it photoshop for a few hours. She looks so trashy here…more than usual.

    I really am surprised at Kaiser’s reaction. Had it been Gaga, Katy Perry or Raccoon McPantless, the reaction would have been totally different I think.

  65. DiMi says:

    Flan, go eat some flan and buy a dictionary because you don’t know what relevant means. How can you say she’s not relevant when you are looking at her on the cover of one of the biggest magazines on the planet. She is topping charts globally on international major awards shows. That’s what those of us who know what relevant means call relevant. Your hostility towards her doesn’t make her irrelevant. I can’t stand Sarah Palin, but she’s definitely relevant.

  66. honeyv says:

    Come on!!! definitely photoshopped. I don’t believe any photo of any celebrity anymore! Editors, directors, whatever, everyone don’t let them “untouched”.