At Instagram, British Vogue says: "The nine models gracing the cover are representative of an ongoing seismic shift that became more pronounced on the SS22 runways; awash with dark-skinned models whose African heritage stretched from Senegal to Rwanda to South Sudan to Nigeria to Ethiopia. For an industry long criticized for its lack of diversity, as well as for perpetuating beauty standards seen through a Eurocentric lens, this change is momentous."
At CNN, a writer based in Nigeria says:
Why are the models depicted in a dark and ominous tableau, the lighting so obscure to the point they are almost indistinguishable on a cover meant to celebrate their individuality? Why were they dressed all in black, giving a funereal air, and an almost ghoulish, otherworldly appearance?
Why were they sporting strangely-coiffed wigs? Many of these women wear their natural hair normally and it would have been great to see that reflected on a cover celebrating African beauty. Additionally, on the cover, the models' skin color appeared to be several shades darker than their normal skin tone.
The photographs were taken by Afro-Brazilian photographer Rafael Pavarotti, and the images -- published in numerous glossy magazines over the years -- are consistent with his visual style of presenting Black skin in an ultra-dark manner....
But the lighting, styling, and makeup, which purposefully exaggerated the models' already dark skin tones, reduced their distinguishing features and presented a homogenized look. Was this the best way to celebrate Black beauty?...
Should we ask what's the best way to celebrate black beauty or what's the vision of the artist/photographer? Pavarotti is black, so to push him back and say he's doing it wrong is to reject a black vision, to put him in a lower position than all the photographers whose vision is respected. And yet, the artist and model relationship has long been a matter of critique, and Pavorotti shouldn't get special immunity from criticism.
Many online critics felt the images were fetishized and pandering to a White gaze, ironic, considering the editorial team behind them consisted almost entirely of people of African descent.
Ghanaian writer Natasha Akua wrote in a private message on Instagram: "When I saw it I immediately was shocked ... I feel like I know what statement he was trying to make visually but turning these black models into this strange tableau straight out of a horror movie just felt instinctively wrong."
"Why darken their skin beyond recognition?" she asked. "To make some statement about being unapologetically black? Unapologetically black means being who you are and does not require this manner of hyperbole."
"I find the lighting and tones beautiful," Daniel Emuna wrote. "But my personal complaint is that publications and brands are constantly communicating that the deepest darkest hue in complexion represents the truest essence of Blackness or even Africanness. This is clearly a mark of the white gaze."
Posts
121 comments:
"gracing the cover?"
Now you're getting into fiction.
The lighting is bad.
My first take was that perhaps some, if not all of them were mannequins.
Well I think it’s hideous. Too dark. no contrast. It makes the subjects look like one big blob. I would think the same if it was all pale skinned white women in light clothing posing in front of a white background as well. I am not Vogue’s market though.
I do not like admitting this but I got a "#Free Our Girls" vibe from this tableau...as if these were the young ladies kidnapped by Boko Haram. This was like a reunion photo and their faces and body posture were meant to show the abuse they had suffered.
[shrug] I don't find this photographer's vision to be very attractive, but hey, it's a take.
If the problem is "the white gaze," and the photographer's choice here is meant to emphasize the - let me give this a shot - the sense of threat that white people and especially white women feel when confronted with blackness, uh... mission accomplished? But it's a pretty significant leap to assume that their (white woman) audience actually feels such a sense of threat. And a pretty big risk to confront them with a visual harangue about how intolerant they are.
If, on the other hand, the object is to present a sense of unity among black beauties, well, I would have chosen to portray them in a way that highlighted their actual beauty more and instead used posture and setting to present the unity idea. But I am a simple woman and never wear or even admire haute couture.
Vogue has never been a favorite of mine. (I was super bummed when they stopped publishing Omni back in the day.)
I do remember reading an article some years ago highlighting the idea that fashion designers (and maybe you can extend this to fashion photographers), especially the gay ones, are deeply (ahem) hostile toward women and do everything they can (a) to downplay their femininity and make them look like "twink" boys, and (b) to make them believe that deliberately ugly clothing is "beautiful" and fashionable.
“Clearly the mark of white gaze”…
Proving points is not my forte- and I just don’t understand why that remark isn’t as racist as any other racist statement. Not that I truly care- idk what the standard for the majority of the people who live in these countries is- I would think that would be more important than this emphasized photo. It’s my understanding that these cultures live in color- the women dressed in a bright cacophony of material.
Do u know what I see? A different form of slavery…
"Many online critics felt the images were fetishized and pandering to a White gaze,..."
No winning. If the issue is produced entirely by a team of black people, including the photographer, it's a 'white' problem. If there had been white people involved in the production, particularly the photographer, it would have been...you guessed it- a white problem.
And this: "Was this the best way to celebrate Black beauty?..."
The answer is no. The best way is to shoot it with natural lighting, natural skin, natural hair. Let the beauty of their natural selves show through.
This issue is a horror show. A demented corruption of what is, I'm sure, the natural beauty of these women.
They don't get a pass on criticism because the photographer is Black, nor should he get all of the blame. There's also an editor (white woman), creative director (white woman), stylists, makeup artists and a whole team of people who produced this.
This time last year Vogue had an unflattering photo of Kamala Harris on the cover.
Also- isn't anybody allowed to smile anymore in photographs? What is that about?
Since vogue is a fashion magazine (as in fashion that is only seen on a fashion runway, and not something that the everyday person wears) I didn’t see anything ‘wrong’ or deserving criticism.
Then read the text - ah, of course, everything has to be viewed through the lens of racism.
“ For an industry long criticized for its lack of diversity, as well as for perpetuating beauty standards seen through a Eurocentric lens, this change is momentous.”
There is no diversity here. The women are made to wear wigs to perpetuate a beauty standard that is not their own. The momentum’s change seems to be the meaning of words.
I don't know what the message is supposed to be, but it comes across to me as being one entity with multiple heads. The clothes blend together denying the models' individuality and create some sort of hydra. And, the faces are indistinguishable.
Mary Beth
Sorry to be so grumpy at this hour; but they DO get a pass, a complete pass and that's why they get a pass. If you don't get that, you have a white problem.
"communicating that the deepest darkest hue in complexion represents the truest essence of Blackness or even Africanness. This is clearly a mark of the white gaze"
Wait, I thought the white gaze liked its blackness light? You know, like Halle Berry, Beyonce, etc.?
What is going on with the model in the upper left? Is she Frankenstein? Is that fashion these days?
Skin color Uber Alles. The ultimate anti- MLK attitude.
I guess none of them are old enough to remember Grace Jones and how that photographic technique somewhat became her trademark. I can't say that I've ever heard her music, but I do know who she is based on those album covers.
I thought for sure the controversy was going to be that it's sexist to omit any men.
"This is clearly a mark of the white gaze"
Well, it is a cover of Vogue. That is quite literally the point of Vogue, to pander to the white gaze.
Here's an early cancellation:
"Satoshi Kanazawa, PhD, Evolutionary Biologist and professor at London School of Economics , in his most recent PT [Psychology Today] post (which has been removed from the site) Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women? reported that
...women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women. (read full post here) [also purged].
Here's the pretty chart:
The chart is still there. "But it gets worse:"
LOL What a damned dishonest society we all live in.
Dark skin is hard to light. Especially really dark skin. It just soaks up everything you throw on it.
That's why most black talent tend toward lighter skin.
...purposefully exaggerated the models' already light skin tones, enhancing their distinguishing features and presented a distinct look.
So would this be better? Would he then be accused of creating disunity in the black community?
Fashion mags are sales tools. They must think all the money is in Black pockets now. White girls should stay home and sew their own clothes.
Imho if Vogue wanted to celebrate the beauty of black women and the current fashion trend - is black clothing the latest? - then they picked the wrong photographer to do so. Neither the women nor the fashion is recognizable and able to be appreciated. I think the cover is a failure except for the controversy it elicited, if that was the actual goal.
Temujin @ 7:24: “ Also- isn't anybody allowed to smile anymore in photographs? What is that about?” It’s about Resting B*tch Face. All models do it.
It looks to me like they're wearing some form of black face. Or zombie makeup.
Black Beauty was a film popular with girls. I have no idea what the plot might have been but it had a horse. That's probably the best you can do.
I see no beauty whatsoever, just a clump of black cells. Somewhat ashamed to admit, but my mind immediately went to the guys in the back with RPG's strapped to their back, and an ISIS flag in the forefront.
"the lighting so obscure to the point they are almost indistinguishable on a cover meant to celebrate their individuality?"
The author doesn't understand because their basic premise is incorrect. The models were not picked for their individuality, they were picked to represent "blackness".
Owen said...
It’s about Resting B*tch Face. All models do it.
1/22/22, 8:07 AM
Judging by this picture, they've gone well beyond RBF and we'll into homicidal maniac territory.
My daughter-in-law is a Kenyan (born) of Ethiopian and Somalia heritage who has been on the cover of Vogue Arabia. She is a top model in the Middle East and lives in Dubai.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chanel+ayan+vogue&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=oKcNVwmLUlz3JM
Gordon Pasha @ 8:23: “My daughter in law [etc]…”
So?
Can we go back to when the complaint was to many light-skinned blacks? I think that was yesterday.
I thought blackface was racist. That's what that distinguished shakedown artist, Al Sharpton, says.
i honestly thought that they were mannequins... They're certainly cookie cutters
Pavarotti is black
Is he though? At times we might have said multiracial or regarded him as a product of the melting pot. And indeed, by Brazillian standards he might count as multiracial (pardo) rather than Black (preto) -- as his Italian name suggests.
His work or the work of the designers whose clothes he photographs seems to rely on bending ethnic and gender stereotypes in strange ways that might be regarded as cartoonish and derogatory if the artists couldn't claim oppressed group status.
Also, the thing about "diversity" is -- if you go to many African or Asian countries, you don't see that much of it. Where is the line between diversity and uniformity?
The Vogue cover is bad because it is ugly. Vogue is a fashion magazine. Ugly is bad fashion. QED, this cover is bad.
Owen @ 8:07 said: "It’s about Resting B*tch Face. All models do it."
And athletes. And high school kids. And Obama's Presidential staff. And college grads. Rock and Hip-Hop musicians (classical, jazz, and country musicians still smile- why is that?).
It's just weird that so many people try to look so tough, or so angry and rough around the edges, or so hurt. It's weird that they purposely try to look that way instead of...happy. Says plenty about our culture when the aspiration is to look angry, tough, or hurt.
For reminder: Obama's Presidential staff
Not worth studying for the intended shock value; however, if they would have superimposed the "Captcha squares" with a witty question about what to look for...
Job one for a magazine cover photographer is to create an exceptionally striking image, one that will make people want to possess the image, to look at it again, to talk about it and to see more like it. If the image is controversial, all the better.
Mission accomplished for Pavarotti.
"For an industry long criticized for its lack of diversity,…"
Yeah, that cover just screams "diversity"…
The gamma curve should be tweaked. Most of the information is in the dark tones; dark skin, dark clothing. Steepening the lower end of the curve would spread the range of light intensity (value) at the dark end. Not much going on in the highlights, so make use of what range you do have and spread differentiation at the dark end.
Human eye does this automatically; camera does not. Just a quickie slap with the Smart Curve in Adobe 8BF Plugins to Irfanview does a bunch to open up the black blog in the cover pic; brings out shades, shadows, and colors in the clothing and faces.
I recall way back when--I think it was the early 90's--when TV ads started to have black characters depicted in mildly foolish but "ordinary" ways--i.e., the same as white characters. I believe there was a Wendy's commercial and I remember the Southwest "Wanna get away" campaign. I thought it was a real breakthrough and refreshing--black people not being presented as symbols (icons of perfection--or background servants) but as essentially ordinary people.
Bill Cosby did a lot to advance this idea (OK, he apparently did a lot of other stuff as well).
In our current hyper-racialist mode, nobody is "ordinary" and everyone is a symbol of whatever color or gender or ethnicity they either happen to be (or choose to identify as, I guess).
So maybe the Vogue thing is just whatever it is--weird fashion shit in which the color of the models is just the color scheme.
(They could hardly get away with having white models colored black--!!!)
Or as I often say to my kids--"What the hell do I know?"
Hence, my statement: emotions and feelings…
Another one bites the dust. I’m learning though- if Althouse had taught Technical writing- I would have failed.
The women are all beautiful. All purposefully posed a specific way: not of their own mind…
Models modeling.
My guess was that the top center model has the lightest color face. Which of course would be because of colorism on the part of the photog or editors. Or their intended audience.
My understanding is that in some parts of Africa, the people are tall, slender and have high cheek bones. Africans of Bantu heritage are not so configured. This cover discriminates against Bantus, and, in Africa, more people look like Bantus than Maasais. Perhaps Vogue should hire a Bantu photographer and some Bantu models to redress this wrong.....My own response is that there's not enough male gaze in the picture. It should be better lit and the models should wear bikinis or negligees but made of kente cloth. That would genuinely celebrate Black beauty.
Vogue is racist. Full stop. This is how they roll. It’s only ironic today because they were last in the news when their one black editor died. This is exactly on brand for Anna Wintour who prefers very light skin on fashion models and isn’t afraid to show you that over and over and over…
I see faces obscured. Why are we obscuring beautiful faces?
Well, I guess the photo worked. We’re all talking about it. Obviously, the editors of Vogue wanted to shock in order to catch the readers’ eye and get attention. The photographer is the artist and this is his style. Vogue knew that when they hired him. As far as I’m concerned, I really don’t care. I’m not Vogue’s demographic. Rich white ladies read Vogue (or look at the pictures) to see what the latest styles are. I guess a small number of black women also read Vogue. But I think they might be more inclined to buy Essence. At any rate, we have a magazine cover of a group of black models. Can’t please everybody, so why try.
You know the difference between Vogue and Essence? You can see the cover model clearly on Essence when they’re black.
Say 'cheese!"
This is important because so many, many people get the cues on how to behave from the fashion runways of Milan, etc.
>“ For an industry long criticized for its lack of diversity, as well as for perpetuating beauty standards seen through a< Eurocentric lens, this change is momentous.”
Oh, really? I don't see much "diversity" there.
Vogue still exists?
farmgirl said, "Do u know what I see? A different form of slavery… "
I like this comment. It carries the weight of insight.
Ice Nine said, "I don't see much "diversity" there."
I don't either. What's wrong with us?
You give 'em a Vogue cover full of Black models and they still, *of course*, manage to massage racism out of it. The "racism" racket is just too sweet to give up.
I kinda like the picture.
First thing I thought was it was kinda cool.
Like Achilles, I like the photograph- it was different and interesting in a way few Vogue covers are.
And Ice Nine is right- there is no appeasing the race hustlers.
Andre Leon dies and the magazine goes to hell?
The "white gaze" is a curious phrase. Clearly, Blacks want to be something more than what Whites usually see them as, and women want to be more than what men usually see them as, but so long as there are other people and other groups, they are going to be looking at you, usually with preconceptions (positive as well as negative) of their own about you. How does one get around that? Hell is other people (when it's not oneself). The conclusion seems to be that there is no escape from racism and "racism," anti-racism and "anti-racism," except maybe by getting rid of "the other." But I guess I need to read more theory.
>Temujin said...
Also- isn't anybody allowed to smile anymore in photographs? What is that about?<
They're supposed to look badass. It's just in keeping with that "strong Black woman" self-mythologizing that is so imperative these days.
A Rainbow of exclusion. A dark Rainbow? Perhaps not, but rather an aesthetic model.
Diversity [dogma] is a color judgment, class-based bigotry, not limited to racism. Diversity philosophy is founded in motive and em-pathetic fervor that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, and intrinsic value, normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas (e.g. "Jew privilege"), and affirmative discrimination. One step forward, two steps backward.
They think that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. The consensus is progressive and disagrees with their religious beliefs.
how come there are no models from India ? or the other dark people countries?
Was this photo taken before or after they robbed the jewelry store?
"...this change is momentous."
IMHO, any piece of writing that contains the word "momentous" automatically triggers my Hazmat Bullshit Proximity Alarm. I may merely track the object; I may only fire a warning burst; but usually I throw out the whole text and try to forget whatever it was going on about.
Narayanan said...
how come there are no models from India ? or the other dark people countries?
They don't count because they're really White Black people.
The thing that I've noticed about the fashion industry is that they have a long history of, occasionally, doing things that look weird and unflattering. The mistake that they made here was to have all the models be black. So it came out of the gate as a racial statement. When you make a racial statement, and it happens to be weird and unflattering to a lot of people, you're asking for trouble.
EH said...
I don't know what the message is supposed to be, but it comes across to me as being one entity with multiple heads.
--------
thanks now I get it >>>> depiction of Maha Kali Mata! the black goddess of doom destruction justice
Maybe we're supposed to admire the technical skill that allowed the photographer to get each face well enough lit to perceive the features and expression even though women with very different skin tones were sitting next to each other. Probably spotlights from above. And each face has a different expression, none of them easy to understand. Diane Arbus might have taken those expressions. But will that sell clothes? or magazines? "Mr. Jones, why should Vogue hire you?" "I'm tired of women looking for new clothes that are interesting and attractive and I can photograph my boredom with it all quite well."
Talk about a photo that begs for cartoon thought bubbles to be added.
This is the first time I've had any thought about Vogue magazine for probably over 5 years. So my guess is the just want relevance.
It's all tiresome at this point.
Like watching British dramas set in the 18th century filled with black nobility and interracial relationships.
Btw, it looks like they're wearing black face.
'No winning. If the issue is produced entirely by a team of black people, including the photographer, it's a 'white' problem.'
It's that white asshole Gutenberg's fault : )
Pursuit of beauty is often inconsistent with pursuit of political statement.
It's just nonsense to critique the latter as not being beautiful.
Unfortunately it looks like a black blob to me. I can't define the clothes at all and Vogue is supposed to be a clothing style leader.
If that picture was a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle, it would have the word "impossible" followed by three exclamation points on the box lid.
“Bill Cosby did a lot to advance this idea (OK, he apparently did a lot of other stuff as well).”
Part of why Cosby had to be taken down was that he was so normal - at least back when he had his TV show. Married to the mother of his 5 kids, all living happily together. Yes, that wasn’t just what he portrayed on TV, but in real life too. My partner knew the Cosbys somewhat during that time. One of the nicest families she had ever met. She was running a floral shop at the hotel he and his family stayed in and where he did his act. She would sneak them in and out through her floral shop so they didn’t have to encounter the paparazzi, and was a frequent visitor to their suite, often including a glass of champagne. Of all the many stars she met in Las Vegas, he was her favorite, with only Elvis coming close.
Reminds me of the OJ Simpson mugshot when he got in trouble. Newsweek put it w/o change on its cover. Time put an "aesthetically enhanced" version of the shot on its cover. One of the enhancements was to give OJ darker skin. Some people ascribed racist intentions.
Meh, anyone watching the commercials during an NFL game would assume that 80% of Americans are pickup-driving Blacks. It really is the same old condescending racism the Left has always indulged in. We can over-represent minorities because we’re so smugly secure in our own superiority. Like letting a child win a game of Candyland.
Isn't the problem the editor, not the photographer, who probably snapped hundreds of photos in the sitting, from which the editor selected this one.
Six very black black people with undoubtedly black black hearts to match their black black complexions, and three not quite so black people who are obviously better than the black black six, all sitting there in their oversized, draping black costumes.
So it's obviously a visual commentary on the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
Just a guess.
Personally, I find the photo aesthetically displeasing. My son is a photographer-videographer in Uganda and the surly appearance of the women in this picture is certainly not reflective of the beauty and good nature of the Ugandan people and other Africans depicted in his work - regardless of their poverty and hardship.
It is unfortunate that the Vogue photographer sees women of his race this way and more unfortunate that he, and Vogue, choose to have others see them this way. Their beauty is lost to his dark “art” and some political or woke quirk of his editors.
Readering said...
Isn't the problem the editor, not the photographer, who probably snapped hundreds of photos in the sitting, from which the editor selected this one.
It could be taken as that. If you google Raphael Pavarotti you'll see that he's done quite a few other photographs of Black models in this style.
Of course, to be fair you also have to entertain the possibility that it's not a problem so much as an opportunity for the complainers to get a little attention by complaining about it.
A name change to Vague would fix all of the problems raised in this post.
I'm a White man, so I speak plainly.
I don't think they'd enjoy the shout back theater.
Lots of mediocre people are celebrated as talented even when they're not. This supposedly talented photographer really is not.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
Of course, to be fair you also have to entertain the possibility that it's not a problem so much as an opportunity for the complainers to get a little attention by complaining about it.
It is played out on this thread.
Division is the goal and people who leap to complain about this picture are just as reactionary as the people hailing it as some sort of triumph.
The aristocracy needs a divided low trust society.
Talking about race and calling everyone racist is the best way to accomplish this.
Throwing in some wonderful comments about IQ differences between races is the cherry on top.
Beautiful faces, as should be expected on a fashion mag cover, some odd clothing, as should be expected on a fashion mag cover, and 100% cultural appropriation of Western European colonialist hair styles, which is so un-woke as to be jarring.
As a child in the 60s and a school kid in the 70s, I personally attest that natural Black hair is beautiful. These hair styles are amazing, yes, but I expect better from Vogue.
Beautiful faces, as should be expected on a fashion mag cover, some odd clothing, as should be expected on a fashion mag cover, and 100% cultural appropriation of Western European colonialist hair styles, which is so un-woke on a fashion mag featuring African models!
As a child in the 60s and a school kid in the 70s, I personally attest that natural Black hair is beautiful, and non-white hairstyles are the bomb for Black models. These hair styles are amazing, yes, but I expect better from Vogue.
Any magazine that had a cover trying to make Hillary Clinton look glam can do better than this.
Any magazine that had a cover trying to make Hillary Clinton look glam can do better than this.
The phrase "Black black blackity black black" comes to mind.
I don't fault the photographer for staying true to his artistic vision. I fault the publisher for choosing his vision to represent the story they're publishing. In another context, his photography wouldn't be my cup of tea, but fine, whatever. But choosing this as your celebration of diversity is a tone-deaf fuckup of typically 2021 proportions.
I think the problem is, for a US magazine to claim fabulousness for native Africans puts African Americans in a bad place. These are beautiful women, but do you have to be pure African to be beautiful?
Ceciliahere said...
Well, I guess the photo worked. We’re all talking about it.
This. Circulation is down across the board, many fashion/interior design/"home" magazines are defunct. I don't believe the magazine is trying to send any "message" - they made it as dark and mysterious as possible and it will increase social media traffic everywhere - instagram/facebook/etc.
Some white people in authority saying “look at me, I’m publishing a picture of black people”, and everyone is supposed to tell them how wonderful and enlightened they are. Objectively, it’s a shitty picture. Presumably, each of these women is very attractive, which is their job. How about putting each of them, one at a tune, on the cover like a real Vogue model, not as tokens, without drawing attention to the gesture, just treating them as models for clothing on the cover of a fashion magazine, in other words just doing their jobs, not as props in some vague political gesture. Is that too much to ask?
I think Beyonce is a good looking woman and even better looking when she wears blonde hair. If these women were wearing wigs, I don't see why they shouldn't make use of blonde wigs. You see lots of Asian women with blonde hair. Why not? Hair color is optional, and blonde hair is more appealing. As noted earlier, the women should also be wearing kente cloth garments, preferably bikinis or negligees. There's not a huge overlap between morose and beauty. There is, however, a certain amount of overlap between sex appeal and beauty.....I hope my observations and suggestions will lead to better Vogue covers and increased racial harmony and understanding. I feel that if we can all get behind just the right Vogue cover we will have gone far towards healing the racial divisions that rift this country.
So, just to recap...
Black women are artificial mannequins... That ONLY look acceptable with White People Hair?
Do i have that right?
Plastic faces, blacker than the Ace of Spades...
With Straight plastic hair, such as Never seen in nature
???
I did think immediately that the lighting or colour balance was off -- Sidney Poitier having died earlier this month, I had recently read about how the lighting for In the Heat of the Night had to be adjusted specifically to show off his skin to better effect rather than turning his head into an indistinct dark brown blob. And that's probably what the critics initially reacted to too . . except that the photographer is also Black and this is his gimmick. So they're left lamely complaining about how the styling makes them look deliberately creepy or whatever.
All that said, the complaint at the end that the blackest colouration is fetishised as the most authentically "Black" also rings true to me. The Khoi-san have quite light skin, compared to, say, the Dinka, but I don't think it would make sense to consider the Dinka more authentic than the San. But I am of two minds as to whether the "White gaze" has all that much to do with it. I think it probably has more to do with in-group status competition among Blacks and that some Whites pick sides. Interaction with non-Black society certainly has some effect since there's advantages (and disadvantages) from catering to outgroup preferences, but caring about skin colour is pretty universal and in most societies (e.g. East Asia, India) long predates significant White influence. It's not a variable that suddenly attains a shocking new significance only thanks to the appearance of Whites on the world stage.
Not all men…
prefer blondes, eh?
just treating them as models for clothing on the cover of a fashion magazine, in other words just doing their jobs, not as props in some vague political gesture
That would be diversity of individuals, minority of one, and a model of color aesthetics in art, but not woke and morally broke with an empathetic appeal.
They should feature Indians, so we can compare and contrast people of black in their diverse racial distributions. Featuring African races exclusively is a seismic step backwards in color judgment and class-based bigotry. Unless, of course, diversity was their motive and intent, and diversitists followed in an irreconcilable parade.
There ought to be a "Patronizing Much?" app that people can turn to when they get ideas like this ...
My initial thought upon viewing this image: why did Vogue photograph a bunch of skinny white women then render them Black via Photoshop after the fact? Thus, I thought the offense was that it symbolized "Blackfacing" everything on the surface to make it acceptable.
"I find the lighting and tones beautiful," Daniel Emuna wrote. "But my personal complaint is that publications and brands are constantly communicating that the deepest darkest hue in complexion represents the truest essence of Blackness ....
Once upon a Black Panther time, darker your skin, better you are. Light skin reflects some white devil in your ancestry..
You just can't please some people, and it's a waste of time to try.
So . . . the Black faces of white supremacy?
Blogger Andrew said...
Was this photo taken before or after they robbed the jewelry store?
This made me laugh.
"For an industry long criticized for its lack of diversity,…"
Well that narrows it down.
Dark skin, black clothes and poor lighting = I cannot see who they are! I cannot even see what they are wearing.
I thought the point of a fashion magazine was to get us all excited about... fashion?
I think it's wonderful to showcase women from all over the globe - and all their glorious skin tones.
That just feels like an angry gay guy idea. or an anna wintour idea ( who is - as Trump would say - Nasty.)
Looking at TV commercials who knew that the USA was 70% black?
At best, amateurish; at worst, there is no excuse. It is horrible photography.
This style is not in vogue.
They all look alike to me.
There are beautiful women with dark skins. Vogue only just discovered this in 2022. They’re a bit slow.
Just try to imagine the women all smiling. Everyone would be laughing theiir ass off!
So they finally get 100% black people on a cover and they still whine about it.
I thought it was a great picture.
Waaay back when I was young and thin and cameras used film, I worked for a bit shooting and printing weddings for a very good pro. I learned that photographing black people was hard, especially given the contrasty qualities of film at the time. Lighting had to be perfect, and backgrounds carefully chosen, or the faces melted into blobs or the background was overpowering.
This guy did this all digital, obviously, which makes it easier to fiddle with problems, but he still did a very nice job of managing the image evenly and retaining all the facial detail and gradation. I'd guess he probably made hundreds of versions on the computer, lighter and darker, and this was what he decided was the most striking.
It's not portrait photography. It's "art", which means he gets all the latitude he wants. You either like it or you don't, and to draw racially-based conclusions about it is a sort of selfish intrusion into his image. But then, selfish intrusion into everything is what
the new racists do.
Post a Comment