Many have criticized the cover for perpetuating, or reviving, stereotypical representations of Black males -- the image of a wild, dangerous, "animal" who is a threat to white women. Dismissing such ideas, a spokesperson for Vogue said, "We think LeBron and Giselle look beautiful together and we are honored to have them on the cover." But several writers have pointed out what seem to be intentional echoes of old posters -- one an ad for the U.S. Army (above), one a poster for the movie King Kong (below). What do you think? Is the image of LeBron problematic? Is it racist?
4 comments:
Wow. It’s amazing how you don't see the parallels until someone puts it in your face. I never would have thought that such a photo would have been recreated in today’s era. I thought these mythical representations of one’s races would cease to exist by now. It makes me wonder how intentional the photographer’s depiction really was. Were they simply following an internal perspective that they have always had? Or were they purposely trying to recreate the historical image of Hong Kong and a Caucasian damsel in distress? And if such a portrayal is simply part of one’s nature, then how much progress has society really made?
I think that this image is just as bad as the images that we witnessed in class. Some may disagree and say that this overreacting to a degree, but nonetheless, the similarities between the two pictures are hard to ignore. Look at the outfit colors LeBron's stance, legs apart and hunched over, LeBron"s facial expression, LeBron"s "weapon"(a basketball) in his right hand.
I am very resistant to the possibility that the photographer's intent was to present LeBron as a parallel for King Kong (with regards to race, anyway), and moreso I would like to argue that there are more deep-seated undercurrents at work that are not so simply defined through a comparison of structures/layouts of the two images.
It makes me consider what i believe the photographer to be depicting. It seems to me that the masculinity and power of LaBron is what is explicitly demonstrated. He is an idealized male, who has a successful life because of his physical prowess which is inherently connected to his ability to attract the fairer sex.
It is interesting that in a fashion magazine, a man who is not dressed in a high fashion style is portrayed on the cover next to a soft and delicate woman. I believe this connotes a great deal about what it is that men are expected to be in society. Not gentle and beautiful, but aggressive and powerful.
This too, is problematic and extends to race, but in a complex way. The masculinity and as an extension, the social value of men (especially black men)is often determined most distinctly by their physical abilities. Black males who have the most successful lives tend to be professional athletes who perpetuate and live in the cycle of aggressive masculinity.
I see strong connections to the US Army Image, as well as to the King Kong image, but i believe that the connections occur not because one references another (in this case LaBron's photo referencing the Kong and Army photos) but because there are undercurrents that influence them all. These undercurrents is the portrayal of masculinity.
That being said, i would still argue that the image has racial implications to it. The first obvious question i have, why not a beautiful black woman? Not to argue that inter-racial relationships are inappropriate, but the choice to use a white woman exists for some reason, and i think the implications of it reflect a great deal about our society. For instance, I think the connection of King Kong works nicely for the LaBron image with regards to the woman. The woman in both images seems to be an object, stolen by a giant monkey or taken as a (white) trophy by a powerfully masculine athlete.
I also find it interesting that the woman is not the subject of the discussion. Immediately focus was put on the male, and the woman was ignored. Does it not say a great deal about our culture that in a fashion magazine (geared towards women) the portrayal of a woman on the front cover is not strong and independent, but controlled and owned by a man.
I completely agree with Michaels comment above. The first thing I saw in this picture was the positioning of the male and female.
First, to answer the question- I do think this photo has racial consequences (intentions, I don't know.) When you put it next to the other pictures, it is hard to ignore.
The woman does seem to be submissive and vulnerable in the picture. She is placed below the man (slightly) and is objectified. (in my opinion). She is in his left arm, a basketball is in his right. Immediately my mind went to "killing us softly 3" a short (documentary?) on the portrayal of women in the media. The film shows how the portrayal of woman has changed over the years, and points at how far it still needs to go.
Post a Comment