Kate Moss, African. September 21, 2006 Jill You know what’s awesome? Using blackface to promote issues in Africa. I’m not even sure where to start in explaining how wrong this is.
Sweet weeping Jesus on the cross. Given the (entirely justified) uproar over Gwyneth Paltrow’s blue stripe and inappropriate beaded necklace, I expect that the internet will erupt into flames. Literally. Fiberoptics will ignite the world over. *heads for the bunkers*
You thought Kate Moss in blackface and Leonardo DiCaprio choosing his favorite movies were more ridiculous than … Bill Gates on the fight for global justice?!?
Not only is there Alek Wek but also Liya Kebede. But I do love Alek Wek because her jet-black skin, round face, and broad nose puts an image in pop culture of seriously African features as beautiful. Not that black women who look more like Halle Berry (straight hair, narrow nose, lighter skin) aren’t beautiful (as a mixed-race person, that’s what I look like) but it’s good to see the variety. And that Kate Moss image is totally creepy. What kind of point did they think they were making? How on earth did they convince themselves this was remotely appropriate?
Fucking seriously. EVERY TIME somebody blackfaces up any kind of image anywhere, everyone int he world who knows better recoils in horror. And yet, there’s still that one person who think they’re clever (and the entire organization that goes along with it to publish the thing).
Wow–I wouldn’t have thought of the photo as “blackface” unless I read this post that showed it in the context of the magazine cover. Mostly because I think of blackface as an unpleasant effort to look (and mock) “black” and this seemed more like “fun with spraypaint” that is not especially uncommon. (I’ve seen models who were blue, gold, silver, gray, and bronze-painted in the past.) So, a random tip: if someone wants to post about the photo being offensive (which it clearly is, in context), be sure to include the “not a fashion statement” and “The Africa Issue” quotes to avoid the “but it’s just a fashion statement!” protest.
I’m not even sure where to start in explaining how wrong this is. You don’t have to. I counted and it’s at least a 147 different kinds of wrong and you’d just have to start in the middle and work your way out. I’ll ask this: This magazine is English/British right? Please tell me that it is. Please. Understand that it won’t mitigate a thing but it will provide, at least, some sort of an explanation however tenuous. And Giorgio Armani for heaven’s sake! Didn’t magazine editors learn after Tom Ford’s disgraceful “guest editing,” of the Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair that fashion designers have NO BUSINESS styling or editing magazine pieces regardless of how trivial or substantial?
I’ll ask this: This magazine is English/British right? Please tell me that it is. Please. Understand that it won’t mitigate a thing but it will provide, at least, some sort of an explanation however tenuous. Unresolved colonialism issues?
zuzu Says: I’ll ask this: This magazine is English/British right? Please tell me that it is. Please. Understand that it won’t mitigate a thing but it will provide, at least, some sort of an explanation however tenuous. Unresolved colonialism issues? Yes, actually. I think that most of Europe -and I am including Great Britain, et. al..- have unresolved issues with colonialism. I thought that after the “class” riots in Paris they might begin to get hip to the game, but I don’t know if they’ve got it in ’em. Also, I thought, the imagery and historical context of Black Face would be present but siginificantly less prevalent in Britain. Doesn’t make it any less wrong or stupid.
It’s not peanut butter jelly time, it’s alcoholism time! Now I know what older people mean when they say something makes them want a drank of whiskey.
And people ask why a bitch is so angry… You know, if the word RESIST where spray painted across this poster it just might…oh fuck it, who am I kidding? Lawd, give me strength…
Oh. My. God. I mean, I was worried that it’d be even more offensive (read: Al Jolson-style), but WTF were they thinking? I mean, were Iman, Alek Wek, and every other African model on the planet busy or something? Or is an issue not serious until white people are concerned about it?
As a British person, I feel somewhat ashamed. Especially since the Independent is for the most part a respectable, centre-left broadsheet with good content. I’d expect better than this from them. Lawks, I wouldn’t expect even the Daily Mail (notorious right-wing rag; rather like a print form of Fox News) to print something so utterly crass. What on earth were they thinking? What the hell does Kate Moss with a black photo filter have to do with fighting poverty in Africa? Would it killed them to have put an actual African person on there, instead of some white, privileged, coke-snorting media darling? I sincerely hope they get deluged with outraged letters, at the very least.
So blackfacing now comes with complimentary masectomies? (where are her boobies!? And why are her lips black? no black person has black lips for fuck’s, she might as well show us her incredibly dark skinned palms) What is with the recent upsurge in blackfacing atm? I remember how, bac kin my day, whole years could go by without famous incidents of blackfacing. Now it’s about once a month that something stupid like this happens. Is it the end of the world? because I don’t feel fine.
This doesn’t actually bother me, although it does puzzle me. Mind you, I would never have known that was Kate Moss had it not been pointed out (whether it was a black Kate or a white Kate) but still… I can’t figure out the purpose of this photo, or the one with Paltrow (I thought the parody response to that one was hilarious, though). I can’t find any story to go along with the photo (offhand, haven’t really searched) so I don’t know. Is it that they are attempting to generate a feeling of empathy in their readers/viewers? We know that black lives are seen as less important to many, so it’s possible that they are trying the “Just think, if so and so had been born in a different place… ” type thing. If that is the case, I wonder how that campaign is working out for them? I’ve never been a fan of things like that because they seem (to me) to more engender feelings of pity and a sort of paternalism (or maternalism, I guess). And a very one dimensional view of many African lives, cultures and issues. I find the absence of any hint of a breast strange, too. Does she normally have any?
Is it that they are attempting to generate a feeling of empathy in their readers/viewers? We know that black lives are seen as less important to many, so it’s possible that they are trying the “Just think, if so and so had been born in a different place… ” type thing. *Snort* Yeah, imagine a world without Kate Moss. I don’t think it was that sophisticated, or they would probably have considered the implications of reducing blackness to this thing white people can put on.
Aside from the racism, (which other people have already ripped to shreds), that picture just terrifies me.
“What the hell does Kate Moss with a black photo filter have to do with fighting poverty in Africa?” I read that her skin was dyed. “Would it killed them to have put an actual African person on there, instead of some white, privileged, coke-snorting media darling?” I don’t know. Maybe it means something to have a white, privileged, coke-snorting media darling appear in hyper-blackface. But I can’t figure out what it means. Hence it is difficult to be properly outraged, or flabbergasted, or tickled to tears, or whatever reaction I am supposed to have. What does it mean? Does anyone know?
I’m guessing the reason Ms. Moss is in blackface is because we, the public are presumed to be able to relate more to a coke-snorting, priviledged waif, than an actual African woman. Liya Kibede? Alek Wek? Supermodel, shmopermodel, we can’t relate unless their white. All those endorsers, and fashion designers are wrong, wrong, wrong. What, you didn’t you know that?
DCmoviegirl Says: “I’m guessing the reason Ms. Moss is in blackface is because we, the public are presumed to be able to relate more to a coke-snorting, priviledged waif, than an actual African woman.” It can’t be that dumb, can it? I live in Queens, New York, and many of my neighbors are Black Africans or Americans and they’re a lot more down-home and relatable to me than Kate Moss. I feel that Kate Moss dyed black must be some kind of symbol of something, like a Benetton ad, but I’m just not getting it.
Purposefully malnourished white woman embodying personal and cultural excess as a living symbol of rapacious consumerism — yup, I can see the Africa connection. Clear as day! Thud.
I don’t know. Maybe it means something to have a white, privileged, coke-snorting media darling appear in hyper-blackface. But I can’t figure out what it means. Hence it is difficult to be properly outraged, or flabbergasted, or tickled to tears, or whatever reaction I am supposed to have. What does it mean? Does anyone know? DCmoviegirl Says: “I’m guessing the reason Ms. Moss is in blackface is because we, the public are presumed to be able to relate more to a coke-snorting, priviledged waif, than an actual African woman.” It can’t be that dumb, can it? I live in Queens, New York, and many of my neighbors are Black Africans or Americans and they’re a lot more down-home and relatable to me than Kate Moss. I feel that Kate Moss dyed black must be some kind of symbol of something, like a Benetton ad, but I’m just not getting it. With all due respect, I think that you’re both over-thinking this. It’s entirely possible that Kate Moss was chosen for her relatability (is that even a word) but I’m guessing that the motivation behing this imagery is much more simple and much more dumb. Over privileged “coke-whore” or not, the fashion industry is absolutely enamored with this woman. She’s just a model, true but she has a great deal of influence over the way women who are steeped in the ideals promoted by the industry want to dress. She is a trendsetter; a much sought after print model who provides excellent advertising for designers. Her every outfit and accompanying accessories are photographed, chronicled, catalogued and instantly made that much more profitable. Kate Moss, currently, is fashion. And Africa makes Giorgio Armani think of the color black. Just that simple. He, no doubt, thought it was incredibly witty to photograph Moss beside that tagline “Not a Fashion Statement,” and thought that if she was spray painted with that granite-y Black it would create an easy visual connection. In fact I’d bet you two fat men that that’s as far as his thought process and “conceptualization” went. He never even considered that what he was doing was 1) unnecessary because if you want to trivialize the entire continent of Africa by representing it with a portrait of a fashion model you could easily use an African fashion model and 2) unbelievably offensive. And, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not giving him a pass. This image is offensive. But I really believe that Armani is an old man who knows a whole lot more about drape than he does anything else and probably thought he was being clever and trendy. The bigger question is what were the editors of this magazine thinking?
Nobitron Says: “Just that simple. He, no doubt, thought it was incredibly witty to photograph Moss beside that tagline “Not a Fashion Statement,” and thought that if she was spray painted with that granite-y Black it would create an easy visual connection. In fact I’d bet you two fat men that that’s as far as his thought process and “conceptualization” went.” I don’t know. As you say, it would have been a simple matter to obtain a 100% African model. Therefore, I feel that something weirder and more surreal was going on in G. Armani’s mind. With the legend “not a fashion statement” it seems to add up to “I will dunk Kate Moss in black dye and take a picture of her and it will Mean Something Important, more important than mere fashion.” Kate Moss dunked in black dye cannot possibly represent Africa, so the Important Meaning cannot be “Yo, Africa!” Can it?
If they dunked her in black dye, how long did she have to walk around with dyed skin after that? I don’t imagine it washed off right away.
You don’t think it was meant as a reminder of white guilt? Cause that is how I, a non-american, reads it.
I’ll ask this: This magazine is English/British right? Please tell me that it is. Please. Understand that it won’t mitigate a thing but it will provide, at least, some sort of an explanation however tenuous. The mag’s British, and I for one clearly remember the amazingly popular TV programme The Black and White Minstrels (men in blackface, women white as white can be) which lasted into the 70s, so there’s a strong blackface tradition in the UK. But Armani’s not English, so I don’t think that explains it. Moss really doesn’t hardly have tits, they’ve just done the lighting so her nipplis are shadowed, not that that matters. I think whoever said that they just wanted Kate Moss no matter what hit the nail on the head, and this was the only way they could think of to tie it to Africa without going Paltrowesque.
I think of one good reason for doing. I (for example), somebody who never reads the Independent, is now aware of the existance of the magazine solely because they just did something that makes people talk about it. Now it’s on my radar. That’s advertising.
I think a lot of what norbitron says is dead-on. I doubt that much thought beyond the immediate of their experience, much like most people, went into that cover design. Its a design adn to them that is what it is all about. As for the editors, I think they let it slide, because well, if an African woman posed there, then the fear I guess would be that the statement wouldn’t capture the interest or empathy of white folks, I guess. I dunno. Her boobs are there, but rather flat as tends to occur in women’s boobs when not hoisted up in bras, by corsets or inserted with silicone bags. Also, she’s rather thin remember? Before the days when women could have their boobs cut open and silly-cone bags inserted in them, thin in body usually translated to less boobular profile. And yes, wipe out that nipple, so the epi-center of the breast, so very dangerous as men might lose their self control and the world be brought asunder.
And zuzu, I’m sure removability of the dye was a major consideration, lest Ms. Moss be poisoned for a week or so and her life be catapulted into confusing territory of social anaylsis and loss of revenue.
Um, maybe the point was that is was supposed to highlight how racist the modeling industry is and how blackface is still everywhere (in various incarations) , but it is ignored if the person or industry is powerful enough. Maybe the point was to get you talking about something important.
Um, maybe the point was that is was supposed to highlight how racist the modeling industry is and how blackface is still everywhere (in various incarations) , but it is ignored if the person or industry is powerful enough. Maybe. But I really doubt it.
That’s so fucked up. This goes beyond a beaded necklace and some purple lipstick near the eyes. This picture (and the removable poster — post your appropriation on the wall!) is revolting.
The person who claimed I overthought it, responded with an even more overthought-out answer. Not, that it doesn’t apply. I’m just pointing that out. This is a British magazine. In Britain, Kate Moss is a HUGE celebrity. To clarify what I meant, this is very much a Time to Kill “now picture she’s white” ad. As stupid and offensive as can be.