Posted: Fri 28 Mar 2008 18:49 Post subject: Vogue Cover Controversy
Quote:
Cover controversy
Annie Leibovitz/Vogue
Vogue's April Shape Issue featuring Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen.
Megan K. Scott
Associated Press
Mar. 26, 2008 12:00 AM
Do you think LeBron James' Vogue cover is offensive?
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.
Photographer Annie Leibovitz shot the 6-foot-9 NBA star and the 5-foot-11 Brazilian model for the cover and an inside spread. Vogue spokesman Patrick O'Connell said the magazine "sought to celebrate two superstars at the top of their game" for the magazine's annual issue devoted to size and shape.
"We think Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen look beautiful together and we are honored to have them on the cover," he said.
James told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer he was pleased with the cover, saying he was "just showing a little emotion."
"Everything my name is on is going to be criticized in a good way or bad way," James told the paper. "Who cares what anyone says?"
But magazine analyst Samir Husni believes the photo was deliberately provocative, adding that it "screams King Kong." Considering Vogue's influential history, he said, covers are not something that the magazine does in a rush.
"So when you have a cover that reminds people of King Kong and brings those stereotypes to the front, black man wanting white woman, it's not innocent," he said.
O'Connell, the Vogue spokesman, declined further comment.
In a column at ESPN.com, Jemele Hill called the cover "memorable for all the wrong reasons." But she said in an interview that the image is not unusual - white athletes are generally portrayed smiling or laughing, while black sports figures are given a "beastly sort of vibe."
For example, former NBA star Charles Barkley was depicted breaking free of neck and wrist shackles on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Dennis Rodman graced the cover of Rolling Stone with horns poking out of his forehead and his red tongue hanging out.
Images of black male athletes as aggressive and threatening "reinforce the criminalization of black men," said Damion Thomas, assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology at University of Maryland.
But others say the image show James' game face - nothing more. And they note that Bundchen hardly looks frightened.
"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.
Well, I didn't really get the controversy at first because I'm not that familiar with Vogue, but my husband (who is black) made a good point about LeBron James not being in a suit and appearing in a primal pose when this is Vogue, known for glamorous covers, and they don't typically have black men on the cover. According to the article, he was the first. So, yes, I kind of got it at that point that it was inappropriate. My husband recommended that I look at other Vogue covers since I'm not that familiar with them. What I found made my heart sink.
Here are some examples of what seems to be a typical Vogue cover.
Here are some from Vogue India. Same level of glam, if not more.
Vogue Australia. Same.
Apparently Vogue Paris has featured a black man on the cover.
Even the way Jennifer Hudson is portrayed is much less glamorous and almost looks like she's in the middle of a goofy guffaw.
Is anyone else seeing this pattern? What is up with Vogue? Can any avid Vogue readers shed some light?
Last edited by OTHER on Fri 28 Mar 2008 19:37; edited 2 times in total
The thing that bothers me the most about the Jennifer Hudson picture is that I'm sure there were other shots that came out WAY better and WAY more glamorous. So, why pick a shot that makes her look like a buffoon?
For example, did they not have any shots of her that came out like...
this
or this?
Am I just tripping here folks or do the people at Vogue (multiple countries' worth) see "black" folks as a joke? Or worse?
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Fri 28 Mar 2008 20:09 Post subject:
Well the only way to know for sure is to get the CIA guys to waterboard the owners of the magazine and the photographers to get at the truth.
Otherwise it's a harmless picture... in my opinion of course.
Then again maybe Vogue paid Lebron a few million behind the scenes to get him to pose, knowingly, for the 'Kong' aspect and told him not to own up to it.
On the other hand maybe those in charge at Vogue have some latent, prurient interest in Black men... well, maybe not.
If they wanted to cause a ''real'' ruckus why not show Lebron with that same look on his face actually looking at the woman. Then the critics can really howl about it.
When I first saw it, my 1st thought was "woo I'm still amazed when I see a black man and a white woman together in America"
I was going to post this cover as well but from that point.
What your husband said does make sense
He could have been dressed to match her, with the basketball looking like a hi rolling baller.
I saw the cover but didn't connect with the fact that it is Vogue. By definition of the word and the history of the magazine I would say the baller is not in Vogue.
NOUN:
The prevailing fashion, practice, or style: Hoop skirts were once the vogue.
Popular acceptance or favor; popularity: a party game no longer in vogue. See Synonyms at fashion.
intr.v.
vogued , vogue�ing or vogu�ing , vogues
To dance by striking a series of rigid, stylized poses, evocative of fashion models during photograph shoots.
OTHER wrote:
Well, I didn't really get the controversy at first because I'm not that familiar with Vogue, but my husband (who is black) made a good point about LeBron James not being in a suit and appearing in a primal pose when this is Vogue, known for glamorous covers, and they don't typically have black men on the cover. According to the article, he was the first. So, yes, I kind of got it at that point that it was inappropriate. My husband recommended that I look at other Vogue covers since I'm not that familiar with them. What I found made my heart sink.
Is anyone else seeing this pattern? What is up with Vogue? Can any avid Vogue readers shed some light?
Last edited by gemini072 on Sat 29 Mar 2008 03:50; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 03 Jun 2005 {Posts: 270 } Location: California
Posted: Sat 29 Mar 2008 03:45 Post subject:
Ugh, I am so glad I dropped my Vogue subscription ages ago.
That cover is not in the least fashion forward. Why not have the athlete dressed to the nines à la GQ or something? You know, something different, and not just a stereotype. Leibovitz has no imagination.
No surprise at Annie Leibovitz's composition of the 'models', though. I get nauseous seeing her photos in Vanity Fair. She doesn't do many photo shoots with people of color in them.
by Jason Whitlock
Jason Whitlock brings his edgy and thought-provoking style to FOXSports.com. Columnist for the Kansas City Star, he has won the National Journalism Award for Commentary for "his ability to seamlessly integrate sports and social commentary and to challenge widely held assumptions along the racial divide."
Would someone please write a handbook? "What Will and Won't Piss Black Folk Smooth the **** Off" would be an international bestseller.
What's your take?Got an opinion on the LeBron-Gisele Vogue cover or Jason Whitlock's column? The discussion is already raging. Join in. I'm black, and I'm pissed off most of the time, but I wouldn't leave home without the handbook. Not in these racist-ly confusing times. I can barely keep up with when I'm supposed to be disappointed as opposed to offended as opposed to being pissed smooth the **** off.
Right now I need to know where this LeBron James-Gisele Bundchen-Vogue-cover controversy falls. And just who am I supposed to be mad at, LeBron, the photographer, the editors at Vogue or Tom Brady?
Maybe they're all to blame. Maybe that's the point of this whole mess. Or maybe they're just as bewildered as I am.
According to the allegations, King James looks like King Kong clutching Fay Wray on the latest cover of Vogue, and the image, according to potential handbook writers, "conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man."
Hmm, to LeBron and his handlers, he looks like LeBron clutching a pretty white woman on the latest cover of Vogue, and the image conjures up the idea that LeBron can race up court with a basketball and a supermodel.
I agree with LeBron. The photographer captured him exactly as he is. You know, when he covered his body in tatts years ago, mimicking a death-row inmate, LeBron invited people to jump to the conclusion that he's dangerous. Yeah, that's the way the image-is-everything game is played. Ink is a prison and gang thing. Don't act like you don't know the origin of the current fad.
Vogue put a mirror in our face, and we're complaining about the reflection. Half the black players in the NBA take the court each night in front of white audiences tatted from neck to toe like they're shooting a scene for Prison (Fast)Break.
When David Stern insisted on helping these players with their image by implementing a dress code, many of the players and their media groupies screamed racism. You see, showing up to work in a white T and iced-out (heavy jewelry) was their way of showing loyalty to their boys in the 'hood, a shout-out to the corner boys and girls.
And any time someone with common sense points out that athletes are making fools of themselves and feeding negative stereotypes, he or she is shouted down as a sellout, racist or out of touch.
Just look at how much heat the NFL takes for trying to stop Chad Johnson from bojangling. This is why a handbook to clear up the confusion is so necessary. When Johnson slaps in his gold teeth, dyes and cuts his hair into a blonde Mohawk, dances a jig in the end zone and makes life absolute hell on his black coach, that is fun and good for the game.
But when King James apes King Kong it is a terrible blow to the perception of black men.
Would we be having this discussion if LeBron struck the same pose on the cover of Ebony while holding Selita Ebanks? Think about it. And if we wouldn't be having the discussion, what does that say about us? Are we only bothered by negative images of black men when the primary/sole consumer of the image is white people?
Vogue ain't for us. Tyler Perry's new movie, Meet the Browns, was produced with us in mind. It had a great box-office debut, coming in at No. 2 with a take of more than $20 million. It also broke records for negative black stereotypes and simple-mindedness.
We ate it up, and I've yet to hear much of an outcry about a romantic comedy built around a single mama with three baby daddies, her loud-mouthed, weed-smoking, gun-toting Latino best girlfriend, a deadbeat daddy, a drunk sister and a deceased father who was a pimp-turned-preacher. I could go on. This list is endless.
Rather than reading and hearing universal condemnation of Tyler Perry, the drag-queen moviemaker is being hailed as a genius for recognizing what attracts us to the movie theatre.
I'm telling you we need a handbook. We need something athletes, entertainers, black and white folks can easily refer to when deciding how to react to the images we choose to project. The chapter on rap-music videos could be studied at major universities across the globe. I'd like for Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Exploitation Television, to pen that section when he comes off the Clinton campaign trail.
LeBron James is a kid, and his talents as a basketball player and absence of a father allowed him to "grow up" rather than be "raised." His stated goal is to be one of the richest men in the world. Like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, he is a child celebrity interested in increasing his fame and little else.
He's in very good and very deep company when it comes to being unconcerned with and unqualified for the job of representing black men in a positive light.
Hell, given our current state of confusion, I'm not sure Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could handle the job.
Posted: Sat 29 Mar 2008 16:18 Post subject: Re: Am I supposed to be mad about LeBron?
gemini072 wrote:
Vogue put a mirror in our face, and we're complaining about the reflection. Half the black players in the NBA take the court each night in front of white audiences tatted from neck to toe like they're shooting a scene for Prison (Fast)Break.
Even this smacks of buying into stereotypes to me. I mean, what's really going on? Is Whitlock a black man? It sounds like he has bought into the hype. Lebron's tattoos open him up to be seen as a prisoner? As an ape-like tough guy? That is ridiculous! My 37 year old sister, who is a mother of four plus a step-daughter, is up to FIFTEEN tattoos now. I bet you Whitlock wouldn't lump her into the tough, prison stereotype. And what if Lebron was a white ballplayer? Would the tats "net" him this same categorization?
I don't have a problem with the picture in and of itself. Like I said before, I didn't get the controversy at first. If this picture were on the cover of Sports Illustrated I'd think, "Man, this is a REALLY cool cover." One MUST take into consideration: 1. This is Vogue, known for glamorous covers, 2. This is the FIRST BLACK MAN ever featured on their cover (really think about that for a second), 3. Historically, black men have been seen as savages, and 4. Historically, black men have been accused of not being able to control themselves when it comes to white women, especially ones that look like Giselle Bundchen.
Posted: Sun 30 Mar 2008 04:01 Post subject: Re: Am I supposed to be mad about LeBron?
OTHER wrote:
gemini072 wrote:
Vogue put a mirror in our face, and we're complaining about the reflection. Half the black players in the NBA take the court each night in front of white audiences tatted from neck to toe like they're shooting a scene for Prison (Fast)Break.
Even this smacks of buying into stereotypes to me. I mean, what's really going on? Is Whitlock a black man? It sounds like he has bought into the hype. Lebron's tattoos open him up to be seen as a prisoner? As an ape-like tough guy? That is ridiculous! My 37 year old sister, who is a mother of four plus a step-daughter, is up to FIFTEEN tattoos now. I bet you Whitlock wouldn't lump her into the tough, prison stereotype. And what if Lebron was a white ballplayer? Would the tats "net" him this same categorization?
I don't have a problem with the picture in and of itself. Like I said before, I didn't get the controversy at first. If this picture were on the cover of Sports Illustrated I'd think, "Man, this is a REALLY cool cover." One MUST take into consideration: 1. This is Vogue, known for glamorous covers, 2. This is the FIRST BLACK MAN ever featured on their cover (really think about that for a second), 3. Historically, black men have been seen as savages, and 4. Historically, black men have been accused of not being able to control themselves when it comes to white women, especially ones that look like Giselle Bundchen.
Hey, they probably did it on purpose just to create controvery and to sell more copies. Brillant! from a marketing standpoint. Now, when was the last time a cover of Vogue made national news?
And sigh, when will AAs stop pandering to the "That's racist" whine about every little thing? Surely there are more pressing matters that are affecting the AA community than a magazine cover... But, oh wait, the #1 probem facing AAs is negative media coverage (according to a recent survey of AA clergy).
Hey, they probably did it on purpose just to create controvery and to sell more copies. Brillant! from a marketing standpoint. Now, when was the last time a cover of Vogue made national news?
And sigh, when will AAs stop pandering to the "That's racist" whine about every little thing? Surely there are more pressing matters that are affecting the AA community than a magazine cover... But, oh wait, the #1 probem facing AAs is negative media coverage (according to a recent survey of AA clergy).
So, oh, my bad!
Vogue doesn't need to create controversy to sell more copies of Vogue. It sells itself. Wintour knows what she's doing. If Vogue wanted to sell more copies, they'd put James MacAvoy on the cover with Gemma Ward. From a marketing standpoint, having LeBron James on the cover might sell less copies, and receive the most ire. I could be mistaken, but I believe the Beyonce cover was like this. It didn't sell as many copies as people thought it would, and the magazine received a storm of hate mail because they had a "Music" edition in Sports Illustrated, with Beyonce (a non-model) on the cover.
Telling African Americans not to be concerned with media images of African Americans because there are "better things to worry about" is ridiculous, in my opinion. Can't you walk and chew gum at the same time?
Hey, they probably did it on purpose just to create controvery and to sell more copies. Brillant! from a marketing standpoint. Now, when was the last time a cover of Vogue made national news?
And sigh, when will AAs stop pandering to the "That's racist" whine about every little thing? Surely there are more pressing matters that are affecting the AA community than a magazine cover... But, oh wait, the #1 probem facing AAs is negative media coverage (according to a recent survey of AA clergy).
So, oh, my bad!
Quote:
From the NY Times:
WHEN New Yorkers went to the Bronx Zoo on Saturday, Sept. 8, 1906, they were treated to something novel at the Monkey House.
At first, some people weren’t sure what it was. It — he — seemed much less a monkey than a man, though a very small, dark one with grotesquely pointed teeth. He wore modern clothing but no shoes. He was proficient with bow and arrow, and entertained the crowd by shooting at a target. He displayed skill at weaving with twine, made amusing faces and drank soda.
The new resident of the Monkey House was, indeed, a man, a Congolese pygmy named Ota Benga. The next day, a sign was posted that gave Ota Benga’s height as 4 feet 11 inches, his weight as 103 pounds and his age as 23. The sign concluded, “Exhibited each afternoon during September.”
Visitors to the Monkey House that second day got an even better show. Ota Benga and an orangutan frolicked together, hugging and wrestling and playing tricks on each other. The crowd loved it. To enhance the jungle effect, a parrot was put in the cage and bones had been strewn around it. The crowd laughed as the pygmy sat staring at a pair of canvas shoes he had been given. “Few expressed audible objection to the sight of a human being in a cage with monkeys as companions,” The New York Times wrote the next day, “and there could be no doubt that to the majority the joint man-and-monkey exhibition was the most interesting sight in Bronx Park.”
But the Ota Benga “exhibit” did not last. A scandal flared up almost immediately, fueled by the indignation of black clergymen like the Rev. James H. Gordon, superintendent of the Howard Colored Orphan Asylum in Brooklyn. “Our race, we think, is depressed enough, without exhibiting one of us with the apes,” Mr. Gordon said. “We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls.”
I think you are right Melani. Image means nothing
Last edited by anonymouse on Mon 07 Apr 2008 18:05; edited 1 time in total
Hey, they probably did it on purpose just to create controvery and to sell more copies. Brillant! from a marketing standpoint. Now, when was the last time a cover of Vogue made national news?
And sigh, when will AAs stop pandering to the "That's racist" whine about every little thing? Surely there are more pressing matters that are affecting the AA community than a magazine cover... But, oh wait, the #1 probem facing AAs is negative media coverage (according to a recent survey of AA clergy).
So, oh, my bad!
Italian Americans groups are constantly after negative images of themselves in the media as well?
And the cave men from Geico commercials "...even a caveman can do it"
From the NY Times:
WHEN New Yorkers went to the Bronx Zoo on Saturday, Sept. 8, 1906, they were treated to something novel at the Monkey House.
At first, some people weren’t sure what it was. It — he — seemed much less a monkey than a man, though a very small, dark one with grotesquely pointed teeth. He wore modern clothing but no shoes. He was proficient with bow and arrow, and entertained the crowd by shooting at a target. He displayed skill at weaving with twine, made amusing faces and drank soda.
The new resident of the Monkey House was, indeed, a man, a Congolese pygmy named Ota Benga. The next day, a sign was posted that gave Ota Benga’s height as 4 feet 11 inches, his weight as 103 pounds and his age as 23. The sign concluded, “Exhibited each afternoon during September.”
Visitors to the Monkey House that second day got an even better show. Ota Benga and an orangutan frolicked together, hugging and wrestling and playing tricks on each other. The crowd loved it. To enhance the jungle effect, a parrot was put in the cage and bones had been strewn around it. The crowd laughed as the pygmy sat staring at a pair of canvas shoes he had been given. “Few expressed audible objection to the sight of a human being in a cage with monkeys as companions,” The New York Times wrote the next day, “and there could be no doubt that to the majority the joint man-and-monkey exhibition was the most interesting sight in Bronx Park.”
But the Ota Benga “exhibit” did not last. A scandal flared up almost immediately, fueled by the indignation of black clergymen like the Rev. James H. Gordon, superintendent of the Howard Colored Orphan Asylum in Brooklyn. “Our race, we think, is depressed enough, without exhibiting one of us with the apes,” Mr. Gordon said. “We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls.”
That is truly despicable. Thanks for sharing this story, anonymouse. I found some pics...
In my opinion, image is everything. There are people both in the U.S. and abroad that don't personally know any or many African-Americans. Some (many?) of those people believe in whatever image is put forth in the media. Now, I am not only talking about Vogue or magazines, but also television, movies, and, yes, the music industry. Unfortunately, this means that some people are responsible for perpetuating negative stereotypes about their own people. (This doesn't seem to be the case here, with Lebron, unless he had the opportunity to "OK" the cover before it went to print.) There's not enough counter-balance, you know? That's just my observation.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Now, when was the last time a cover of Vogue made national news? 
