The comments above made me smile because I was reminded of an anecdote of Giger’s (I read it in HR Giger A rh+). He was bringing some of his art through Dutch customs and was stopped because they thought he was smuggling photographs (it is an excellent airbrush technique he has!). The artist said, “And where do you think I took these photographs? Hell?”
They didn’t believe they were paintings and he had to hang around there while they sent them away to be inspected by an art expert.

Does the article cast a more prolific portrayal of Giger than may be warranted? It is possible. However, Giger’s work appears to derive from the more brutal and decadent part of society – that is our reality. Thus I would argue that the article has “hit” the proverbial “nail on the head”. I would argue Giger is more attuned to the mainstream machine and his works serve as a more imagiative method of projecting it to others.

Regardless of whether one finds Giger and his works revealing or not – I emphatically conted – “What an imagination!” The contrast of color, use of contradicting shapes and forms, and impact of the images he creates serve to strike a chord in anyone viewing his work. If “pop” were “shock” then I would agree with your argument; however, Giger is “shock and awe”.

Regards,

Martin