Full Version: Lebron and Gisele--racist Vogue cover?
What do you make of this one?:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-v...p&type=lgns
Questions for debate:
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
QUOTE
NEW YORK - When Vogue announced its April cover starring LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen, the magazine noted with some fanfare that James was the first black man to grace its cover. But the image is stirring up controversy, with some commentators decrying the photo as perpetuating racial stereotypes. James strikes what some see as a gorilla-like pose, baring his teeth, with one hand dribbling a ball and the other around Bundchen’s tiny waist.
It’s an image some have likened to “King Kong” and Fay Wray. “It conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man,” said Tamara Walker, 29, of Philadelphia....
“James is a huge, black beautiful masculine statue and Gisele is a feminine, sexy gorgeous doll,” said Christa Thomas, 36, a black account supervisor in Los Angeles. “I didn’t see any kind of racist overtone to it,” she said. “I still don’t. I think there is such a hypersensitivity to race still in this country.” Husni said it is too soon to know how the magazine is selling, though the controversy could increase sales as people rush out to get a “collector’s edition.”
If nothing else, Walker said the cover underscores the need for a more diverse workplace. “If more people of color worked for Vogue in positions of editorial authority, perhaps someone in the room might have been able to read the image the way so many of us are reading it now, and had the power to do something about it,” she said.
It’s an image some have likened to “King Kong” and Fay Wray. “It conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man,” said Tamara Walker, 29, of Philadelphia....
“James is a huge, black beautiful masculine statue and Gisele is a feminine, sexy gorgeous doll,” said Christa Thomas, 36, a black account supervisor in Los Angeles. “I didn’t see any kind of racist overtone to it,” she said. “I still don’t. I think there is such a hypersensitivity to race still in this country.” Husni said it is too soon to know how the magazine is selling, though the controversy could increase sales as people rush out to get a “collector’s edition.”
If nothing else, Walker said the cover underscores the need for a more diverse workplace. “If more people of color worked for Vogue in positions of editorial authority, perhaps someone in the room might have been able to read the image the way so many of us are reading it now, and had the power to do something about it,” she said.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-v...p&type=lgns
Questions for debate:
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
It's media hype. Whether it originated with Vogue or not is unknown. Callers to sports radio this week said that their original opinion was "what racism?" but when the specter is raised, then they see that maybe there is something there. In other words, if some media figures didn't point this "glaring" problem out, nobody would have seen it.
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
I wouldn't put it past them, but I have no evidence either way.
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
At least Lebron isn't on SI. I don't need a curse hurting my Cavaliers chances in the playoffs.
Seriously though, if you look at something looking for racist angles or racist motivations, you are going to find them. Is God racist because it is "pitch black" at night? When the stock market crashes and we call it "Black Monday" is that racist?
Lebron posed for a picture. I'm sure he was paid to do so. He doesn't seem to mind. Of course, depite the fact that he makes 100 times what I do, he is still just "working for the man" to some.
It's media hype. Whether it originated with Vogue or not is unknown. Callers to sports radio this week said that their original opinion was "what racism?" but when the specter is raised, then they see that maybe there is something there. In other words, if some media figures didn't point this "glaring" problem out, nobody would have seen it.
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
I wouldn't put it past them, but I have no evidence either way.
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
At least Lebron isn't on SI. I don't need a curse hurting my Cavaliers chances in the playoffs.
Seriously though, if you look at something looking for racist angles or racist motivations, you are going to find them. Is God racist because it is "pitch black" at night? When the stock market crashes and we call it "Black Monday" is that racist?
Lebron posed for a picture. I'm sure he was paid to do so. He doesn't seem to mind. Of course, depite the fact that he makes 100 times what I do, he is still just "working for the man" to some.
There's something missing in the link. Oh, yes, the actual picture on the cover. You can't really discuss a picture unless you see it, can you? 
Okay, here it is
My first impulse isn't 'racist', but rather, why did they choose this for the cover of Vogue? It's a horrible picture for the cover of a fashion magazine...a man snarling and bouncing a basketball? I guess since it was the 'shape' issue they wanted to juxtapose the 'athletic and gritty' with the 'powerpuff and guilded'? Whatever.
Okay, here it isMy first impulse isn't 'racist', but rather, why did they choose this for the cover of Vogue? It's a horrible picture for the cover of a fashion magazine...a man snarling and bouncing a basketball? I guess since it was the 'shape' issue they wanted to juxtapose the 'athletic and gritty' with the 'powerpuff and guilded'? Whatever.
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
I don't think so, but then again, I'm not sure I understand what consititues a racist image in contemporary USA (this despite that I studied symbology in art and the media). I'm inclined to agree with Amlord that any one who wants to see racism wil see it:
Here for example is Will Smith, apparently showing that black men (and their photoshopped dogs) are armed and dangerous and will bring society to its knees.
Here is Wesley Snipes catering to a blaxploitation mind set whilst brandishing a huge chopper.
Here is Jamie Foxx baring his teeth in an apelike grimace whilst perpetuating the notion of the violent black man.
And here is Denzel Washington demonstratng how black people are evil, whilst Russell Crowe demonstrates how white people are good.
Alternatively they could just be film posters pulled out of context to make dubious racial analogies...
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
No idea
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
Certainly. That woman looks dangerously underfed.
I don't think so, but then again, I'm not sure I understand what consititues a racist image in contemporary USA (this despite that I studied symbology in art and the media). I'm inclined to agree with Amlord that any one who wants to see racism wil see it:
Here for example is Will Smith, apparently showing that black men (and their photoshopped dogs) are armed and dangerous and will bring society to its knees.
Here is Wesley Snipes catering to a blaxploitation mind set whilst brandishing a huge chopper.
Here is Jamie Foxx baring his teeth in an apelike grimace whilst perpetuating the notion of the violent black man.
And here is Denzel Washington demonstratng how black people are evil, whilst Russell Crowe demonstrates how white people are good.
Alternatively they could just be film posters pulled out of context to make dubious racial analogies...
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
No idea
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
Certainly. That woman looks dangerously underfed.
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 28 2008, 10:56 AM) 
Questions for debate:
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
1) No
2) Yes
3) No
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
My eyes rolled when I heard about this story, thinking it was a tempest in a teapot, until I saw this picture side-by-side with the Vogue cover. Very strange.
WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
My eyes rolled when I heard about this story, thinking it was a tempest in a teapot, until I saw this picture side-by-side with the Vogue cover. Very strange.
WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 28 2008, 05:14 PM)
My eyes rolled when I heard about this story, thinking it was a tempest in a teapot, until I saw this picture side-by-side with the Vogue cover. Very strange.
WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
If you want dynamic and contrast in a picture like this, you only have a few actual options, sensual, violent, or subdued being general descriptions of what you can do. Subdued works well in fashion, but its a bit tame when your talking about two completely different body's used for two completely different purposes (Fashion and basketball) though thats the choice I would have gone for. Something with high contrast, each of them back to back. Something akin to Robert Mapplethorpes work. WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
Thats just me though and happily I'm not employed in the fashion industry, Mapplethorpe style images have probably been done to death in the magazine pages, and they probably wanted the 'dynamic' look so that left them with a sensual or violent contrast. No matter which one they chose if there is a slim scantily clad white woman in the picture with a large black male, you are going to get dubious comparisons with old posters like the one you've just shown. The fact of the matter is, there is no originality in symbolism at all, and almost any image can be juxtaposed with previous incarnations (a good example being the swastika)
In point of fact the poster you've linked to does not refer to black people, it is meant to represent the menace of German culture and any contemporary racist conotation is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I would bet you a coffee in a fancy café (or alternative beverage of your choice) that that image was itself also 'borrowed' from a previous King Kong poster. Propaganda art nearly always steals its iconography in order to play on established prejudisms.
QUOTE
Questions for debate:
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
1. No.
2. Probably. And it worked. It torked off people who have an axe to grind. Yawn.
3. Concern of what? Accusations of racial stereotypes because King Kong and gorillas are, in general, the color black?
The ironic part is that the gorilla on the WW2 poster represents savage white people with an evil agenda.
Why isn't anyone mad that a black is being portrayed as a german nazi? I mean, if you really want to read into it, which is ridiculous, but what people are actually doing here! ("Here" refers to the media frenzy, not AmericasDebate, JFTR)
No sense, however, in allowing an golden opportunity of some hyper-sensitive person being offended and making a racial incident out of, and letting it pass by without comment of oppression. Never mind the fact that 30 years ago, rarely would you see blacks and whites in the same picture. Ahhh, yes, progression. That's good a nice ideal, so put that on the backburner. Let's talk about offense!
As much as I'm bored with Hollywood types and detest the "fashion" industry, they are viewed as the most progressive with the "Sensitivity Media". And even they can't get by without being called racist. If they can't, who can?
Mrs. Pigpen said:
QUOTE
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
Certainly. That woman looks dangerously underfed.
Certainly. That woman looks dangerously underfed.
I lol'd.
Maybe not so underfed... perhaps over-barfed?
Another reason I detest the "fashion" industry. Anorexic chicks are NOT HOT. Any woman who kneels in front of a toilet because she thinks "her public deserves skinny" is a pawn of the industry. Of what should be from the "most tolerant" industry, you'd think you would get a little more inclusion than "You're 8 pounds too heavy, sorry darling, you're cut...". Ugh. Here I go on a tangent. Okay, stopping now.
Why does anyone read this rag anyway?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 28 2008, 12:14 PM)
1) Does this "concern" have any legitimacy at all?
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
My eyes rolled when I heard about this story, thinking it was a tempest in a teapot, until I saw this picture side-by-side with the Vogue cover. Very strange.
WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
2) Is this really a publicity stunt by Vogue or by its PR firm?
3) Is there anything about the picture or the article that gives you real concern?
My eyes rolled when I heard about this story, thinking it was a tempest in a teapot, until I saw this picture side-by-side with the Vogue cover. Very strange.
WWI poster and Vogue Cover
I'm fairly sure James and Bunchen were not aware of the poster, but as the article says, Wintour and Liebovitz surely must have come across it. Maybe it was a publicity stunt, meant to stir controversy. I wouldn't put it past Wintour, that's for sure.
Great find. Actually, now that I've seen the other (old) poster, I like the cover even better. And the similarity makes me think that they had to see the other poster. It's too perfect.
--------------------------------------
M-V-P! M-V-P! M-V-P!
We are all witnesses. Go Cavs!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.