The current issue of Vogue features the King of Basketball, LeBron James, and the Queen of Supermodels, Gisele Bündchen. There has been some controversy over this cover, as Slate discusses, because of the visual allusion, as you can see from this picture. The question Slate asks: is the cover racist?
The author of the article, weary of the discussion of race from the Democratic Primary and in the mood of focusing on other, more pressing concerns, would rather punt then arrive at a definitive conclusion. What is your take on the cover. Here are a few possibilities:
First, if you see the cover by itself, as I first did, and not with the movie poster of King Kong, I did not read it as anything other than this cover showing off the hype of LeBron, which is amplified by the presence of Gisele. I would state I understood this in the particular case of LeBron rather than the universal case of all black men. But, I would not have thought about the Lebron/ King Kong connection as I am not sure if I ever saw or would remember the King King Movie poster. Yes, at times, my ignorance of pop culture even amazes me.
Of course, there are more than one way to interpret this image and that is why we are having the discussion over the meaning of the cover.
Second, if you read the cover in terms in a larger context, with the visual reference and the racist overturns, as Slate notes, this cover appears, "to some, to evoke one of the ugliest racist tropes: black male as ape." The article continues to state you can interpret the cover in another context:
The picture's visual inspiration might be King Kong, but the narrative corollary is D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. Men, lock up your ladies! Here comes LeBron!
Yet, for how long must we discuss race on the same tired tropes? It seems that this cover may enter us in a discussion of ideologies associated with racism and political correctness, which denies other available interpretations of the cover. Or, is everything about identity politics? One problem of the academic left is to allow for relativity with language and values except when it occurs within topics that they find offensive (e.g. hate speech).
Third, there is the economic argument, which would state that Vogue is attempting to increase it subscription/ ad revenue/ number of magazines sold. If this were the case, the negative reading of this would be that the magazine may not care about making a contribution to a social discussion of race but just the bottom line. I suppose we could involve ourselves in a consideration of the opposites and state that maybe Vogue wants to engage in a post-racial discussion about society rather than focus on profits. I guess the most important thing to consider is what is the purpose of this magazine and the industry it promotes.
Any thoughts? Or is this something academics discuss because they have too much time on their hands or do not sleep enough?
There is a video about the cover and an interview form the Today Show available if you want more information about this.
3 comments:
I can certainly understand why Vogue chose the put Gisele Bündchen and Lebron James on the cover. After looking at the other pairings inside the magazine, one can see that they are by far the most famous "couple," although I'm not sure that other pairings don't exhibit better photographic chemistry.
If I had not seen the King Kong comparison, I would not have made it on my own. In fact, my first impression of the photo is that it is odd. They look like they were given a different set of instructions before the shoot and seem incredibly mismatched, not to good artistic effect. (In fact, there's a photo of the two in which James sits on a chair and Bündchen stands on a few boxes that is gorgeous, but admittedly exhibits less energy.) But, having seen the King Kong poster, I do think it's at best an uncomfortable coincidence and at worst a glamorized continuance of racist mores.
I'm curious to read Vogue's blurb about the cover shoot. Annie Leibovitz is the credited photographer. I'm also curious to hear her vision for the shoot.
To be honest, I find the cover a bit dull. And I'm far more disturbed by the issue's theme--the shape issue? Take a gander at the highlights: "Secrets of the Best Bodies" (featuring LeBron and Giselle, of course); "Perfect Fit: Dressing for Every Shape from Size 0 to 16"; "You Are (Not) What You Eat: Debunking Diet Myths." I really don't know why Vogue bothers with an annual "Shape" issue--pretending to celebrate the great variety of beautiful forms while really only acknowledging one? Give me a break.
As for the King Kong motif--if that's what Lebowitz was going for, don't you think LeBron was in on it? Can't you just hear her encouraging him to really embrace his inner beast, while reminding "curvy" model Giselle to do her best sexy damsel in distress?
Besides, Vogue was already outdone in the basketball player/Victoria's Secret model arena by Sports Illustrated, whose layout featuring Will Ferrell and Heidi Klum was far more fun and interesting--if not sexy.
Um, can't a picture just be a picture? Sometimes I think people go looking for controversy. I know one thing, however; whoever pointed out the unfortunate similarities (and given what I know about Annie Leibovitz, I have to believe the similarities are purely coincidental) b/w the cover and the movie poster has only succeeded in ensuring that Vogue will sell a hell of a lot more magazines.
Post a Comment