A few of my fellow bloggers (Of Ignorance and Politosaurus Rex) have decided to write about this particular topic, so I thought I would join in on the fun.
The current cover of Vogue magazine has sparked a bit of controversy, as the image shows the African-American LeBron James, as well as the light-skinned Gisele Bundchen (though it is important to note that Bundchen is of Brazilian descent, and not just “typical white,” as many might assume) in fairly different roles.
The current controversy lies in many seeing James’ depiction in the image as savage-like, comparing blacks to animalistic beings. One source, for example, says that the image on the Vogue cover “reinforce[s] the criminalization of black men” (Damian Thomas, courtesy of USA Today). The image has been compared to that of King Kong and Fay Wray, as Bundchen is the damsel, and James is the dominating and violent monster.
I am always conflicted when I see critiques of images that are accused of being "racist." Part of me wants to sort of dismiss this as "over-analyzing" and just reading way too far into things. I mean, can't we just be happy that we are sort of promoting "diversity"? It often times seems that every image of any minority can always somehow be spun around as a negative one, and when there are so-called “positive” images, they would basically only occur on downright un-viewed TV shows or horribly-circulated magazines.
However, to the contrary, I do also wonder if it really is an issue that we place many minorities into these narrow-minded "roles," such as the African-American male being "animalistic.” Is it that we reading too far into the analysis of the image, or are we just conditioned, through the media, not to recognize this as a problematic depiction?
It is extremely problematic to see that minorities in our country are limited to stereotypical controlling images. While I am not saying that this particular image necessarily purports a narrowed view of black men, it may be in our subconscious not to recognize it as such. Furthermore, it may be even further into our subconscious not to realize its effects. Many may not care whether or not the image is considered to be negative or positive towards black males, as they can say to themselves: “regardless, this image does not have an effect on my perception of these people, be it negative or positive.” But, the danger lies in us not realizing that these often-repeated images can in fact dominate the depictions of these minorities in the white-idealized media that drives America.
I obviously cannot argue for what my subconscious does or does not process when absorbing these images, as it is my subconscious, but nonetheless, it is something to think about.
The current cover of Vogue magazine has sparked a bit of controversy, as the image shows the African-American LeBron James, as well as the light-skinned Gisele Bundchen (though it is important to note that Bundchen is of Brazilian descent, and not just “typical white,” as many might assume) in fairly different roles.
The current controversy lies in many seeing James’ depiction in the image as savage-like, comparing blacks to animalistic beings. One source, for example, says that the image on the Vogue cover “reinforce[s] the criminalization of black men” (Damian Thomas, courtesy of USA Today). The image has been compared to that of King Kong and Fay Wray, as Bundchen is the damsel, and James is the dominating and violent monster.
I am always conflicted when I see critiques of images that are accused of being "racist." Part of me wants to sort of dismiss this as "over-analyzing" and just reading way too far into things. I mean, can't we just be happy that we are sort of promoting "diversity"? It often times seems that every image of any minority can always somehow be spun around as a negative one, and when there are so-called “positive” images, they would basically only occur on downright un-viewed TV shows or horribly-circulated magazines.
However, to the contrary, I do also wonder if it really is an issue that we place many minorities into these narrow-minded "roles," such as the African-American male being "animalistic.” Is it that we reading too far into the analysis of the image, or are we just conditioned, through the media, not to recognize this as a problematic depiction?
It is extremely problematic to see that minorities in our country are limited to stereotypical controlling images. While I am not saying that this particular image necessarily purports a narrowed view of black men, it may be in our subconscious not to recognize it as such. Furthermore, it may be even further into our subconscious not to realize its effects. Many may not care whether or not the image is considered to be negative or positive towards black males, as they can say to themselves: “regardless, this image does not have an effect on my perception of these people, be it negative or positive.” But, the danger lies in us not realizing that these often-repeated images can in fact dominate the depictions of these minorities in the white-idealized media that drives America.
I obviously cannot argue for what my subconscious does or does not process when absorbing these images, as it is my subconscious, but nonetheless, it is something to think about.
4 comments:
This image has now been posted on three blogs, as you mentioned, but I hadn't heard anything about the controversy until I read the posts (I guess I need to get out more). I feel that The Brand probably has some PR insight into this, but I feel that advertising is in the eyes of the beholder. I would never have pulled up the same picture of King Kong that Of Ignorance used.
A similar case occurred in England a few years ago when Wayne Rooney was featured screaming with his arms out like a crucifix, painted in St. George's Cross. While St. George's Cross has been used by soccer hooligans for who knows how long, it has further connotations with the crusades and was taken as offensive to muslims.
Whatever the insight the general public has on these advertising campaigns, I think in both cases the advertisers need to get some more informed focus groups before they put their product on the market.
I agree with you...if a giant white guy was up there with Gisele, do you think anything would be said? What can one say? The giant white man looks like a dinosaur? A polar bear? I think that often times the media does take advantage of situations like this, mere for the fact to have something to talk about. I'm a journalism major, and I understand that often you have to make something out of something or something out of nothing. You can read into the Vogue cover all day long, just like you could read into the cover of Playboy and say that all the women ever featured in the magazine are portrayed as merely sexual objects, but that is rarely done. I think more focus should be taken off reading into false symbolism and things like "Miley Cyrus the 15-year-old singer is too sexy" and instead maybe talk about what's going on in Darfur? Just a thought.
This image is only as important as the reader makes it. It is apparent that James looks animalistic, but he plays basketball for a living. His body is a machine, and his job has relatively animalistic qualities. There could be about 1,000 different reasons as to why he was told to pose in this manner - its just a reason for people to make something out of nothing in our nation filled with different cultures and beliefs.
I have a bit of a different take on the Vogue’s cover of LeBron James and Gisel. For the one person who may not be familiar with what I am talking about, the image, where the NBA superstar and the world’s most famous supermodel are seen posing together, has provoked an extraordinary amount of controversy not because of who they are, but because of what they are…One black, the other white. The photograph taken by Annie Liebovitz, a famous fashion photographer, has been seen as an embodiment of racial and sexual stereotypes where an aggressive, black man in a “King Kong-like pose is embracing a white woman, a Fay Wray-like damsel in distress” (MSNBC).
Now, to introduce my argument, I genuinely feel that the purpose of printing this image is not about perpetuating stereotypes, or even about furthering someone’s racist ideology, but rather quite the opposite. The image clearly is meant to destroy and rebuild the socially constructed barrier that is put up between whites and blacks and to suggest that we have entered a new era that has enabled us to “walk on new water.” Men of African American decent have the opportunity to not only become mega-million airs, but to also “embrace” white women and engage in mixed, heterosexual relationships (plutonic or romantic). Just as repeated images of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have been expounded upon the masses over the past year, Liebovitz’s piece constructively throws the image of a black man and a white woman in readers faces to reiterate the point that “racial boundaries’/lines” no longer exist. Both a black man and a white woman can run for President, and we better get used to it because everyone seems to want to toss the race card into the dumpster.
The image has also been met with much scrutiny because it evokes and resurfaces the notion of a black man lusting after a white woman. I feel that this “forbidden” lust and desire that has existed since Blacks were brought to the United States in the slave trade, and continues to exist today, is now almost fully permissible.
For those of you who have seen the film Mandingo, you know just exactly what I am talking about, and for those of you who have not, I highly suggest revisiting the early twentieth century classic. My point in all this is that the image does more constructively than destructively, and I strongly believe that we need to view it as a positive work that aids in the slashing apart and shredding our prejudices and slanted ideology regarding race and sex.
Post a Comment