Vogues Controversial Cover

[Faust]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



No, I definitely hear what you are saying, Laika. It is a dilemma - do you publicly resent these things while running a risk of being looked at as much ado about nothing, or do you ignore something that is clearly wrong? I look at my students, and I can't wonder enough how blase and jaded they are, but I also get responses like "let the smart ones talk about these things, they simply don't affect us."

EDIT: Ok, but I want to make Vogue irrelevant [86]

[laika]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



well, I'm not so fussed about taking that risk.[75] The real issue--which you are already getting at--is how to protest something in a way that is productive rather than complicit; and meaningful rather than a bunch of hot air.

I have no idea how to do that though. [:^)] The typical modes of protest (which many people I know still engage in) are miserably ineffective. To the point where I think people only bother because they find the gesture self-gratifying. [79]

[zamb]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



I have so much that i want to..............and will say about this, but i am trying to fit my thoughts into my principles before i speak.......................

[Johnny]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

This was written about in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, but the piece then didn't place that particular poster beside the cover. But it is absolutely unmistakably based on that. However...rather than go straight to dbc's conclusion that that means it's automatically fucked up, which was also my initial thought, can I be devil's advocate for a moment. What if it was just dumb. In other words, what if whoever put it together did not mean to make a direct comparison of a strong black man with agorilla, what if he or she saw the poster and thought "hey, I know...we could make a cover that looks like this with the basketball plaer guay and, say, a skinny supermodel"?What if everyone who saw it at editorial level just thought it was a great idea and a good look. Becausetodeliberately draw a parallel between a black man and an ape is so unconscionable that it would not have occured to them?

[Faust]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

I thought about that, but it seems implausible. They can't ALL be idiots at Vogue. However, I would not be surprised if they were insensitive enough to think that it's mere fun, and that those who get offended at it are too uptight or politically correct. I mean, ostensibly, they are concerned purely with form and not content, right? I mean that's the purpose of a bubbly fashion magazine, no?

[Johnny]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

I suppose the specific point I'm trying to make is that it seems implausible that they would have deliberately tried to compare a black man with an ape pejoratively to make a socio-political point because that would, indeed,be seriouslyfucked up beyond comprehension. And if that's right were they being racist?

[kira]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



[quote user="Faust"]I thought about that, but it seems implausible. They can't ALL be idiots at Vogue. However, I would not be surprised if they were insensitive enough to think that it's mere fun, and that those who get offended at it are too uptight or politically correct. I mean, ostensibly, they are concerned purely with form and not content, right? I mean that's the purpose of a bubbly fashion magazine, no?
[/quote]

I would have to think that at some point the reference crossed someone's mind. I just think that they did not care. I think the cover did exactly what was attempted to start a controversy, which as an end result will sell more magazines. I do think they are more concerned with form than content, but I do think they considered the content and its impact. I am not sure what I think about the actual content of the imagery. On the one hand, the stereotype is disgusting if you are considering our history and in reference to that what this alludes to. On the other hand, I think presenting images such as this, as with in the art world, I am thinking about Richard Prince here (he did a series of W covers- two were not even published because the celebrities just did not get it), enables a means of the expression of touchy (for a lack of a better word) subject matter with humor, subversion, directness. I love the expression of something that is wrong in the rightest sense of the word. It enables growth. Also, if the participants are willing, doesn't that same something as well?

[gerry]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



While I do agree that the similarities between the King Kong poster and Vogue cover are undeniable...

I'm pretty sure Andre Leon Talley isn't just there for racial diversity.

[Fuuma]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



I have no idea why someone would complain about the treatment of black men in vogue (hardly an issue unless you want to discuss omission) when they have had this whole dressing women as luxury dolls thing that has been going on for yrs.

And being a 6'9" athlete does give one an almost bestial countenance, if he was russian he's be a "russian bear" or some other primal animalistic comparison.

[dontbecruel]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



[quote user="Johnny"]I suppose the specific point I'm trying to make is that it seems implausible that they would have deliberately tried to compare a black man with an ape pejoratively to make a socio-political point because that would, indeed,be seriouslyfucked up beyond comprehension. And if that's right were they being racist?[/quote]

You'll probably think this is a poncy answer, but I reckon it's important that we're talking about an image rather than an idea. I think the art director probably just thought it looked cool, but most likely never thought to himself that the reason it felt like a powerful image was that it implicity put a man in the position of an ape. Someone else somewhere down the decision-making chain probably did turn that over in their mind and decided they didn't care. This probably represents institutional racism collectively, but that's not really the point I was making: the point is that the image is offensive, regardless of what the people who made it think about black men.

[laika]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

[quote user="Fuuma"]

I have no idea why someone would complain about the treatment of black men in vogue (hardly an issue unless you want to discuss omission) when they have had this whole dressing women as luxury dolls thing that has been going on for yrs.

And being a 6'9" athlete does give one an almost bestial countenance, if he was russian he's be a "russian bear" or some other primal animalistic comparison.

[/quote]

This is exactly why I think the scenario Johnny suggests is implausible--nearly every image in Vogue is about exploiting (someone) for profit. They made a very big deal about LeBron being the "first" black man on the cover (how one can "brag" about this in 2008 is beyond me [79]). I'm sure the choice about how to present him was very conscious and calculated to sell as many issues as possible--in this case, by causing controversy, among other things.

kira:

"On the other hand, I think presenting images such as this, as with in
the art world, I am thinking about Richard Prince here (he did a series
of W covers- two were not even published because the celebrities just
did not get it), enables a means of the expression of touchy (for a
lack of a better word) subject matter with humor, subversion,
directness. I love the expression of something that is wrong in the rightest sense of the word. It enables growth."

I like this idea, and agree that in the realm of art, it can be a very powerful strategy. But I don't think American Vogue (at least under Anna) has either the intention or capacity to be subversive. It is among the blandest and most commercial publications I can think of, with everything contrived to sell, sell, sell. [71]

[kira]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

[quote user="laika"][quote user="Fuuma"]

I have no idea why someone would complain about the treatment of black men in vogue (hardly an issue unless you want to discuss omission) when they have had this whole dressing women as luxury dolls thing that has been going on for yrs.

And being a 6'9" athlete does give one an almost bestial countenance, if he was russian he's be a "russian bear" or some other primal animalistic comparison.

[/quote]

This is exactly why I think the scenario Johnny suggests is implausible--nearly every image in Vogue is about exploiting (someone) for profit. They made a very big deal about LeBron being the "first" black man on the cover (how one can "brag" about this in 2008 is beyond me [79]). I'm sure the choice about how to present him was very conscious and calculated to sell as many issues as possible--in this case, by causing controversy, among other things.

kira:

"On the other hand, I think presenting images such as this, as with in
the art world, I am thinking about Richard Prince here (he did a series
of W covers- two were not even published because the celebrities just
did not get it), enables a means of the expression of touchy (for a
lack of a better word) subject matter with humor, subversion,
directness. I love the expression of something that is wrong in the rightest sense of the word. It enables growth."

I like this idea, and agree that in the realm of art, it can be a very powerful strategy. But I don't think American Vogue (at least under Anna) has either the intention or capacity to be subversive. It is among the blandest and most commercial publications I can think of, with everything contrived to sell, sell, sell. [71]

[/quote]

agreed. i think that they were aware that the images would spark some type of reaction and it would sell, sell being the most opportune thing. I dont think that they had specifically in mind, 'King Kong' and to be that subversive. although, that would make the cover great if that was the case...

[laika]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

Slightly OT, but does anyone remember the controversy over the 1995 comme collection with the striped pajamas? An interesting case of "misinterpretation" that was....

[dontbecruel]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover

Yes, it seemed incredible that Rei (and even Joffe, who is Jewish) didn't make the connection between striped pyjamas, serial numbers printed on the models and cropped hair. But apparently they really were horrified when they realised. Do we believe the story as they tell it?

[pbt]

Re: Vogues Controversial Cover



[quote user="dontbecruel"]Yes, it seemed incredible that Rei (and even Joffe, who is Jewish) didn't make the connection between striped pyjamas, serial numbers printed on the models and cropped hair. But apparently they really were horrified when they realised. Do we believe the story as they tell it?
[/quote]

Not particularly and much less so given that the date of the collection coincided with the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.