The most controversial editorials

[tigerrouge]

^I also feel that 'awareness of racism' in the US necessarily focuses on black people because of the relatively recent history of slavery. I mean, innumerable countries practised it, but often didn't have to face the reality of it, because it occurred in colonies far away from the homeland - but there's no such escaping it, when everyone's still living in the same country, a few generations later.

Another problem is that experimentation in fashion imagery is great, and there can be moments when it performs the function of art, yet fashion imagery is caught in a bind, because it usually exists within - and because of - a layered commercial environment of some sort (eg a magazine). Perhaps it's not always a mass-market environment, but a purchasing audience will be involved at many points. And where you have commerce, you have people whose motivation is not based on noble values.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I'm almost nervous to weigh in because it is such a touchy subject, and somehow I always feel it's something I'm not necessarily equipped to tackle, but one thing I find myself questioning is why it's more offensive or causes more controversy when, for instance, a white model is made up to look black as opposed to a white model being made up to look East Asian. Like I said before, I can't believe that the article discussing the Claudia cover made no mention of the fact that Claudia was also made up to look like some Shanghai Lil stereotype in another shot, with the bobbed hair, Cheongsam and winged eye makeup. It's not as if Asian people haven't been subjected to oppression at the hands of white people, lord knows there are plenty of stereotypes about them, and for decades Hollywood employed white actors in makeup to play Asian characters (just look at Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's and tell me that it's not just as offensive as blackface). But there doesn't seem to be the same kind of backlash, and that cover certainly isn't the first time I've seen makeup used to give a white model a stylized Asian appearance.

Part of me wonders if something like that Daria story would have been received differently if it was a white model among a different ethnic group, if the perception of it would have been something other than "racist".

Agree with tigerrouge that the difference in the US is that oppression of blacks went on for far longer and was far more severe than oppression of Asians. And blackface (there's a term for it ... no Asianface) invokes the offensive minstrel tradition.

Reparations for detaining Japanese in the WWII era have been at least seriously discussed & may have happened (please excuse my ignorance & lack of time to look this up at the moment) ... reparations for descendants of slaves are not seriously discussed, though there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that very serious repercussions (not just of slavery but of ill-conceived policy since) continue for the descendants of slaves in the US today.

Those so interested in 'art' should check out Kara Walker ...

 

[MulletProof]

It's not as if Asian people haven't been subjected to oppression at the hands of white people, lord knows there are plenty of stereotypes about them, and for decades Hollywood employed white actors in makeup to play Asian characters (just look at Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's and tell me that it's not just as offensive as blackface). But there doesn't seem to be the same kind of backlash, and that cover certainly isn't the first time I've seen makeup used to give a white model a stylized Asian appearance.

Hmm.. I understand your point, Spike and not sure my reply here will go through clearly (since it's still early for me!) but please bear with me here : my take on this is that there are groups that basically have an emotional shelter, a country that can sometimes speak up for them (often without results but at least symbolically), the notion that there's a land they can go back to and that's why it's harder not just to offend (there are many interests involved) but to make an offensive stereotype inconsequential.. cause it's like there is an active force backing it up. Now, excuse my ignorance here, but as I understand, black people have many groups to their defense in the US but as a minority, they've basically been on their own for many decades, without any government or foreign organization putting any significant (or again, symbolic) pressure on the US to treat them equally.. just these (relatively recent) groups. Hispanics have the advantage of geographical proximity, they've been abused and are now probably been abused more than ever before but they've had support since the beginning, you can choose not to listen to them but they have been speaking out for a while.. can't speak for Asians because I do not know but then we have Jewish people, they're one of the most influential groups in the US, someone would have to be very very stupid to mess with them and it would be hard to get away with a story that paints a hurtful stereotype of them.. I can think of many advertisers quitting the game there.

Now, things have changed a lot but I feel like the portrayal of black people in publications (or everywhere) has such a long history of abuse, isolation, deeply cemented perceptions and silence that it has gotten to a point where people conform and accept the way they're being presented, almost with this mentality of well you know, at least we're not photographing them as slaves or at least in the previous month we photographed Asians doing the same or in this other magazine things are actually looking worse and no one's making a big deal, why blame me!. And I really wonder, what kind of excuses are these? are we really that lazy to just let it pass because we've been there before?. I said a few pages back that the Daria story isn't particularly offensive in my book, cause I had this idea that it's supposed to take place in a Caribbean island.. I still do to some degree, but you know, what if it had taken place in.. Jamaica, Queens.. would people be really that reluctant to accept the social and racial mockery that it is?. And, trying to mirror this through other races, imagine Claudia Schiffer (your typically caucasian German) doing the same spread, dressed in Weimar 'glamour' style, laying on the table of a party of Jews while they all concentrate around her, serving her own pleasure, kissing her feet.. tell me how would that be acceptable with the ultra sensible story the interaction between these two racial groups carries?, I wonder who would have the guts to just say 'you're overreacting, it's just fashion, fashion is stupid fun and that's why this stupid story should be accepted'?, not just because it's a story they can relate to, but let's say it, they're both faces they can relate to as well and it's just everywhere!.. we've all been told horrible stories of Nazism in almost every single school year (which is strange - I got that but not being an American student (nor German), I don't remember EVER getting Black Slavery), there are reminders everywhere in art.. there's A LOT of money and artifacts of all sorts involved in reminding people how bad it was and people are very sensible to it.. to the point it wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to my post with some 'how dare you compare Daria's story to the Nazis!'. If we're taking racial stereotypes with such lighthearted attitude, then just take them all in and see what happens, see how really stupid some fashion editorials look when you really put them all under the same light, which is where they deserve to be.
It's such a strange industry.. but I guess not very different than any other.. in one hand you have the people that are really doing art for the sake of art, because it's heartfelt and an expression, and on the other, you have people with no principles or sense of themselves or remote political or cultural clue whatsoever standing next to them saying 'hey, I'm an artist, too, everything you see me doing, you can just call it art'.. it's kind of hilarious if you think about it.

 

[YoninahAliza]

I hope you don't mind me making this point, but being Jewish is not a race but it is a religion. Their is a difference between race and religion and it is important to distiguish the differentiation between them. However, many different races and religions have suffered in the hands of ignorant and hateful people. I do agree with you in the sense that we tend to learn more about WWII compared to the history of slavery in school, which is wrong. Both were horrible events in history and it is important to not only educate students about the history of WWII but also the history of slavery. This way history won't be repeated again. In terms of magazine editiorals which portray racial stereotypes (or anything which can be considered hurtful towards a particular group) it is important to understand what they did was wrong, make complaints about it, and then try to ensure that these editors learn from their poor judgement.

 

[MulletProof]

I was referencing them as a minority, same for hispanics (which can very from indigenous to white and black and even asian-descent). sorry if I worded it wrong somewhere but thanks for clearing it up.

 

[YoninahAliza]

Thats okay, I figured that you were referencing Jew's as a minority however I just wanted to clear it up so that other people reading the forum didn't get the wrong idea.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I hope you don't mind me making this point, but being Jewish is not a race but it is a religion. Their is a difference between race and religion and it is important to distiguish the differentiation between them. However, many different races and religions have suffered in the hands of ignorant and hateful people. I do agree with you in the sense that we tend to learn more about WWII compared to the history of slavery in school, which is wrong. Both were horrible events in history and it is important to not only educate students about the history of WWII but also the history of slavery. This way history won't be repeated again. In terms of magazine editiorals which portray racial stereotypes (or anything which can be considered hurtful towards a particular group) it is important to understand what they did was wrong, make complaints about it, and then try to ensure that these editors learn from their poor judgement.

In addition to being a religion, it's also an ethnicity ... I believe Sammy Davis, Jr. was a religious Jew, and of course Elie Wiesel would be a good example of an ethnic Jew.

I think we hear a lot about the Holocaust because it was recent ... people who were there are alive today. A lot of people also don't realize (because Jews are so influential in US and other cultures, and so many are well known) that there are only in the neighborhood of 13 million Jews in the world today. There are diseases with bigger cohorts than that. Six million is a big number, but the percentage is stunning. One evil man and his followers came frighteningly close to accomplishing their goal. Which illustrates very well why it's critically important to stand up, speak out, and take action when you see something wrong happening.

 

[cologne_rocks]

^Talking about religion and taking the discussion on topic again, i remember there was a lot of discussion when Linda Evangelista popped up as Mother Teresa in W Magazine's Art Issue captured by Maurizio Cattelan. I thought i find it quite amusing when religion meets art in term's of fashion.

LesMads.com

 

[YoninahAliza]

Thanks for also saying that besides being a religion it is also an ethnicity, I totally left that out of my post. I really loved this cover of W magazine, its so spot on about what was going on at the time which the issue was released. It is understandable for people to make noise over mixing religion with art and fashion. However, in some cases I am not opposed to it. In the case of this image of Linda I am not really shocked by it. Honestly, I think it is no where near as offending as some of Lady Gaga's outfits in her Alejandro music video.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

Well, let me ask everyone this, how is an All-Black Issue not racist against white models? It definitely is, even if it was just to make a statement... Literally, that issue was racist.

WHAT?! Do you hear yourself?
how is that issue racist when it was one month, and one magazine
out of the many fashion magazines that had a caucasian model featured on
the cover and throughout that magazine....and look now when has a black model been featured on the cover since that issue?

 

[jollyvixen]

Well, let me ask everyone this, how is an All-Black Issue not racist against white models? It definitely is, even if it was just to make a statement... Literally, that issue was racist.

Seeing that white models have dominated for years now - and others have been excluded in favor of them - it's not surprising to have an "all-black" issue.

It's like asking why there is a Miss Black America competition - because it popped up in protest of the absolute lack of black women in these competitions.

It's like asking why the NAACP formed - because whites controlled and dominated the image of black people in the media.

These specific ethnic-based groups formed because of the constant segregation of them from "white" society. But yet, it's "racist" when THEY do it.

As for using racist stereotypes for magazine editorials? Yawn. Please, get creative. Racism is not "edgy" or "cool" - it's racism. Exploiting these painful stereotypes in the name of creativity is disgusting and unethical.

 

[BerlinRocks]

^I also feel that 'awareness of racism' in the US necessarily focuses on black people because of the relatively recent history of slavery. I mean, innumerable countries practised it, but often didn't have to face the reality of it, because it occurred in colonies far away from the homeland - but there's no such escaping it, when everyone's still living in the same country, a few generations later.

Thanks for that, tigerrouge ...
I wanted to say the exact same thing, but as usual you sum-up perfectly.

I find it very odd !

And just wanted to add, that all these recent posts mostly prove that Fashion needs new blood and inspiration in other cultures and civilizations ...

Some questions : What about asians ? arabics ? north-africans ? indians ? etc. and what about the black niches magazines in US ? and what about the 19th century orientalist clichés ? never found somebody here being offended to see Karen Elson in a Hammam, yet it's such a 19th century orientalist cliché ....
and if instead of the black people, there were white workers around Daria ? Would people be offended by the story ?

BRAINWASH !

 

[MulletProof]

^ berlin, a few of us tried to explained why it can be considered offensive in the last two pages. come on now.

I'm trying not to get too worked up on this but see, it's not about some kind of heroic complex trying to speak out for the oppressed throughout history of humanity, I can't be bothered to speak on behalf of the victims of the roman empire or those hanged in the French revolution or Siberian victims, I mean, how tragic, but guess what, it doesn't happen anymore, they've been replaced by other injustices, it's not something we've dragged and imported from centuries before us and that's still at large to this day!..
some of us are concerned because the current stories celebrate and help perpetuating a current stereotype that is STILL very harmful BECAUSE.. *sighs | broken record* a good amount of people cannot bring themselves to understand and acknowledge that it's not okay and that they need to move fuck on and realise how these tiny little presentations of what someone should behave like depending on their skin color are prehistoric and inaccurate and that's what makes it offensive, I mean.. it doesn't take that many brain cells for god's sakes.. it's not about opposing fashion or the expression of fashion.. what is fashion telling us here? this is fashion from the 1950s, it's doing exactly what was okay to do back then, are mainstream magazines really really that dumb and scared and chickeny to pull up these pants and do something really brave and tackle current issues instead of acting like they've been in coma for 50 goddamn years and still have a rush out of racial stories?. please. I know it's Interview and Vogue Paris, both magazines that attract readers who think any ANTM-looking spread with cheesy evening glittery gowns should just receive applause because OMGIT'SFASHION but.. honestly.. fashion is not your sunday church, you CAN question it..

not getting all retro aggressive towards you, Berlin, just thought I should let it all out..

 

[BerlinRocks]

^yeah yeah MP ...
I read it all !

I just wanted to underline that not only blacks were misrepresented or unrepresented in Fashion ... that in a time where tons of people travel, meet different cultures etc. it is probably time to find inspirations somewhere else, and stop sleeping on all those old conservative occidental culture, education and iconography ....
but as usual, my english expression is bad ... I avoid for days coming there and write something, coz I knew I couldn't really express it in a good way. i should have just give karmas to people's post ....
oops ...

i was trying to say the same, but under another perspective ... and not only Black oriented ... open the field, in a way.

 

[tigerrouge]

On the point of general stereotypes, I have noticed that UK Vogue seem to have stopped doing those editorials where they use natives in foreign countries as a backdrop for expensively dressed models. It's one thing to show a flavour of a location, and another to pose in a £12,000 dress alongside impoverished tribespeople which are merely being used as a visual prop.

 

[Fiercification]

Well it's the least they could do considering how appalling their model casting is when it comes to diversity. They went 5 years without a single black model in an editorial and the only Asian model I ever remember being in the mag was Liu Wen...

Considering how diverse the UK is I think it's absolutely appalling that UK Vogue is so whitewashed. Just compare the models in i-D to the variety of models in Vogue and it's clear how bad the magazine looks.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I said a few pages back that the Daria story isn't particularly offensive in my book, cause I had this idea that it's supposed to take place in a Caribbean island.. I still do to some degree, but you know, what if it had taken place in.. Jamaica, Queens.. would people be really that reluctant to accept the social and racial mockery that it is?. And, trying to mirror this through other races, imagine Claudia Schiffer (your typically caucasian German) doing the same spread, dressed in Weimar 'glamour' style, laying on the table of a party of Jews while they all concentrate around her, serving her own pleasure, kissing her feet.. tell me how would that be acceptable with the ultra sensible story the interaction between these two racial groups carries?, I wonder who would have the guts to just say 'you're overreacting, it's just fashion, fashion is stupid fun and that's why this stupid story should be accepted'?, not just because it's a story they can relate to, but let's say it, they're both faces they can relate to as well and it's just everywhere!.. we've all been told horrible stories of Nazism in almost every single school year (which is strange - I got that but not being an American student (nor German), I don't remember EVER getting Black Slavery), there are reminders everywhere in art.. there's A LOT of money and artifacts of all sorts involved in reminding people how bad it was and people are very sensible to it.. to the point it wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to my post with some 'how dare you compare Daria's story to the Nazis!'. If we're taking racial stereotypes with such lighthearted attitude, then just take them all in and see what happens, see how really stupid some fashion editorials look when you really put them all under the same light, which is where they deserve to be.
It's such a strange industry.. but I guess not very different than any other.. in one hand you have the people that are really doing art for the sake of art, because it's heartfelt and an expression, and on the other, you have people with no principles or sense of themselves or remote political or cultural clue whatsoever standing next to them saying 'hey, I'm an artist, too, everything you see me doing, you can just call it art'.. it's kind of hilarious if you think about it.

This discussion is getting a little bit too much "If you don't think this editorial is offensive you are stupid and racist".

I really don't see anything offensive about it except the fact that Daria is the main figure. There is something slightly racist in that. Otherwise, she looks like a rich model/call girl who had to get down to the ghetto for a hit (sexual or otherwise). Are there trashy white hedonistic girls who get desperate? Are there places where black people hang out together? It would be a problem if many editorials were like this....but they're not. Why must every single editorial be portraying exactly how the world should be?

Sure, fashion isn't always just "for fun" - it can be about art and emotions as well of course...but to make it another vehicle for politics - that everything depicted should be somehow politically desirable.... Aside from verging on nit picking it also presents another problem - if there is discrimination how do you present that in fashion magazines? Do you simply ignore it and present the black models exactly like white models, hoping people will do the same in their lives - something you would be inclined to do if you feel fashion magazines are an important political vehicle - or do you present the inequality in some way, thereby perhaps generating discussion such as the one in this thread?

Personally, I am rather thinking that Interview, in this particular case, intended the latter.

 

[Fini]

On the point of general stereotypes, I have noticed that UK Vogue seem to have stopped doing those editorials where they use natives in foreign countries as a backdrop for expensively dressed models. It's one thing to show a flavour of a location, and another to pose in a £12,000 dress alongside impoverished tribespeople which are merely being used as a visual prop.

Well in the June issue ed "Keep it short" there is a shot where three Mexicans(?) stand behind Constance Jablonski and play instruments, but I guess it's a bit better than "impoverished tribespeople" since they're dressed pretty decently...they're still being used as props though

 

[MulletProof]

This discussion is getting a little bit too much "If you don't think this editorial is offensive you are stupid and racist".

I really don't see anything offensive about it except the fact that Daria is the main figure. There is something slightly racist in that. Otherwise, she looks like a rich model/call girl who had to get down to the ghetto for a hit (sexual or otherwise). Are there trashy white hedonistic girls who get desperate? Are there places where black people hang out together? It would be a problem if many editorials were like this....but they're not. Why must every single editorial be portraying exactly how the world should be?

Sure, fashion isn't always just "for fun" - it can be about art and emotions as well of course...but to make it another vehicle for politics - that everything depicted should be somehow politically desirable.... Aside from verging on nit picking it also presents another problem - if there is discrimination how do you present that in fashion magazines? Do you simply ignore it and present the black models exactly like white models, hoping people will do the same in their lives - something you would be inclined to do if you feel fashion magazines are an important political vehicle - or do you present the inequality in some way, thereby perhaps generating discussion such as the one in this thread?

Personally, I am rather thinking that Interview, in this particular case, intended the latter.

I don't think the argument is really dwelling in Daria's story, at least not from my side, I stated multiple times that Daria's story isn't really outrageous for me as I took it in some kind of Caribbean context.

That being said, I do find it (could think of another word but since it's the one I and then you used here) quite stupid to think fashion is really this light game where people don't mean to clap at stereotypes just to create commotion and sell.. it's probably that kind of convenient stupidity instead of genuine naivete.

Why must every single editorial be portraying exactly how the world should be? - I don't expect that much from editorials myself, what I expect is a bit of sensibility and conscious and if they can't handle that either, then just some 'stick to your own business' mentality, if you don't feel like you can tell how the world should be then why are you doing it by shoving us blatant promotions of archaic social and racial structures then? contradictory there.. or maybe not so much, considering fashion is probably the last industry that still has open difficulties with ethnicity.. which makes them a better target of criticism anyway.

You make an interesting point in the end, but fashion publications are more often than not a far from political outlet, I'm certainly not demanding that much from an industry that makes more profit out of oblivion... they seem to cultivate established ideas or social phenomenons, whether it's celebrity culture, internet culture, American culture, religious sentiments, they abstain from creating, they just push it through their pages and if anything, clap a little for certain spectacles, never go as far as condemning. In that aspect, fashion seems like a good refugee for people whose cowardliness is only surpassed by their wish to say something, anything out loud.

So I would assume most magazines know who their readers are and abstain from overestimating them by thinking a peculiar story picturing inequality might drive them to go as far as seeing it, processing it, understanding it, debating it and ultimately opposing them. That's really asking too much from them, the example in this thread is too clear, and I'm not saying they lack the intellectual capacity to do it, people just don't want to question fashion and I think magazines know it and that's what bothers me, that they're irresponsible about that and considering how unconscious and even vain the process of looking at a magazine can be for someone, how people just flip through it happily and leave with the image stored somewhere in the back of their head, unquestioned and accepted, why are they then taking chances perpetuating racial misconceptions? why can't they be as modern and up to date as they parade themselves to be in the rest of their content and feature the modern side of reality, instead of hanging on to the one that's slowly fading away.

 

[MulletProof]

Well in the June issue ed "Keep it short" there is a shot where three Mexicans(?) stand behind Constance Jablonski and play instruments, but I guess it's a bit better than "impoverished tribespeople" since they're dressed pretty decently...they're still being used as props though

I think that's taking the issue a bit too far. which is another reason why I'm still not convinced about Daria's story myself (my whole argument here has been the entire portrayal of minorities). Does the story take place in the Caribbean? if so, then, even if I still have a couple of things to say on the mood and general attitude in which it was executed, I don't think a clashing of races due to geographical movement is something to get our knives out for.

Constance's story was shot near Los Cabos, Mexico.. in a town that's typically 'pueblo', it's not a middle of nowhere tribe but it's certainly not your 5-star resort.. so.. not sure I'm getting the drift here completely, is fashion not supposed to travel unless it reaches equally-expensive scenarios because the contrast is just too uncomfortable to watch? are locals suddenly something to pity because they're not wearing Prada? should one also stay away from getting pictured next to locals because you're wearing your 500 dollar sandals? that's.. a bit extreme for me.