I don't agree with the sentiments, but I do agree with this icon. This is supposed to be album cover art, right? not album cover duplication. I like how the picture was reenvisioned in computer colors. It is instantly recognizable, for sure, and on a level probably some of you wouldn't like to admit, so much:  No, you can't 'see' a tower or a dollar bill, but how would you even know that  is even a swimming pool this baby is in if you didn't have a memory for the original. Only someone who is visually keyed into the actual album cover can identify what is happening; that makes all people without this depth of knowledge of Nirvana left in the dark. That could be cool, if not sub-elitist. Is this pop-art-looking on purpose or by lack of effort? is the question I pose. I would like to trust that warleygp stuck to his vision.

I agree as well.  There is soooo much you could have done with this album cover.

I agree with the sentiments (if not the way it was said) ... this appears to have been a little rushed.  There are some issues with the details of the fingers (and other areas).  Time is running out, but I think you could have made this more with a little extra effort!

Having said that, I instantly recognized it.

totally agreed with tomic and 8bitty, should have asked for (more) help on the forums

pretty much what 8bitty said - even for this canvas size it, kindly expressed, lacks of detail (others would say it doesn't have any)

comparing it with the original you can see how little effort was put into this, that thing on the left for example is actually not a tower but a bad conversion of the water's reflection. same with the dollar note, that one can only identify as such with having the reference in reach or remembering the original..

the only 'reinvention' i see here is that you've omitted the fishing rod =/

great album but that sure looks shitty.