Lovelyish

Wow that’s just… weird. I really don’t even know what else to say about this topic, honestly. 

Seriously, what the fuck is that about?

I think this is wrong. Unfortunately high fashion sometimes aims to be controversial, it get’s people talking and eventually may sell magazines and clothes. Most of the time I don’t think they consider who they may be hurting in the process…

Wuuuuut? 

What is it with this resurgence of blackface recently? I’m calling it what it is: racist & disgusting. Ok I’ll play devil’s advocate for a second, maybe they didnt mean it to be racist but the history of blackface speaks for itself. They made black people look like simpletons.

Seeing this crap makes me not want to buy this magazine EVER again.

@snapeful@xanga - Blackface started in the 1800s. It’s when white people would wear dark make up to look black & just make black people look stupid or played out stereotypes.

i think it looks interesting and i think that was the idea.

as a kid i used to take brown make up and put it all over my face to see what i would look like…
that didn’t make me racist.

what makes painting your skin the color of another race racist? it’s not saying anything bad about the other race.

I agree. Weird, couldn’t they just have hired a black model? No idea what blackface is.

Edit: nvm. Read about it on Wikipedia. Racist pieces of shit obviously come from America. Har har.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/18/18_yellow.html

it looks weird, but maybe they wondered what that stone girl looked like black.

I’m really just a bit confused. I wonder how the model felt about doing this.

@DreamFaerye@xanga - my thoughts exactly. 

Race is psychological

?????

I thoguht they were just trying to be diverse…just by looking at it.
Is it actually racist? I have no idea

@Shinbi_Belldandy@xanga - Yeah I saw a picture on Wikipedia…… WOW. *facepalm*

@frozencherries@xanga - Blackface & Yellowface (a parody of Asians) was a racist practice. It was standard from the 1800s to as late as the 1950s. It’s offensive because they would place out stereotypes & make the race appear simple & primative. Like I said in my first comment I dont think they meant it to be this way but the history of the practice should have detered them from doing it.

If people knew the history about blackface minstresly more people would be upset…

smh.

@Shinbi_Belldandy@xanga - i know what blackface is. but they’re not parodying anyone or anything…they’re not being derogatory in any way in these pictures. it’s interesting to look at a white female painted dark, and they’re not trying to say anything mean about anyone.

i just wonder what was the idea behind this? I mean they had to sit down during the meeting and figured out a reason for this.

I really don’t know what to say other than they meant it to be shocking and uncomfortable for people to look at. ETA:  I don’t think they were meaning to really offend anyone although I am sure they must have known they would.   I guess the only other thing I can say is that a truly talented photographer/editorial designer could have come up with something that was talented without going for such an obvious element.

I don’t know about black and white. I just think all the pictures are pretty ugly.

@frozencherries@xanga - i agree with you. 

@Meowmeowkimmaee@xanga - I totally agree. 

This vogue shoot was odd and unnecessary. I thought the goal of fashion was to look good, and this Stone girl looks quite bland and ugly in these pictures. Either keep Stone as she is (an attractive Dutch white girl) or go hire some Actual attractive Black models (there’s plenty to pick from!!). 

That is a bit weird. I have had my body spray painted to look more tanned for a shoot but the only time they ever went so far as to make me that dark was just to prove to me that it could be done. I never imagined that someone would go that far in such a major publication. I hope they meant it in a better light than what many people are going to see it as. 

@whatblokedoufancy117@xanga - Hey, just so you know (I’m not trying to bash you or anything) but you’ll have a hard time finding a geneticist or a biologist that agrees with that idea. That theory was published by one scientist (idk who to be honest I haven’t read the article myself but I’m pretty sure it was a sociological scientist or something along those lines). Especially when scientists find that drugs like BiDil only work for blacks and not other races. Geneticist also find differences between races. Most people (including myself) believe there’s a distinction between the races that’s more than just physiological. (Not that I’m racist, I’m not white myself and I think everyone should get an equal opportunity and such)

Sorry just wanted to let you know, if you think it’s physiological fine but you better be prepared to defend it because that isn’t a widely accepted view. 

am i the only one not bothered by this? i look at that picture, and to me, it doesn’t connote the negative associations of blackface. i just thought it was interesting. it’s not like vogue doesn’t hire black women or consistently uses white women to personify other races.

magazines play with androgyny and cross-dressing all the time. we don’t suddenly think about the times when only men were allowed to be actors or anything like that.

Uh…. weird. 

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - totally totally agree.

interesting, but the makeup looks poorly put on. maybe thats what they were going for tho. 

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - I’m just curious to know WHY they felt the need to do it. The model isn’t doing anything mocking, it’s just….why? Plus, the pictures are very ugly.

I can’t see why anyone finds this acceptable, given the history of blackface, would think this is a good idea. I find this equivalent to wearing a Swastika on a shirt and calling it fashionable. I don’t care what it originally meant or what it means today, when something has such a horrible history attached to it, better avoid it.

i’m seriously shocked. that’s terribly offensive and horribly wrong. i am severely disappointed.

the whole thing is horrible but that middle pictures is by far the worst.
disgusting.

I don’t think it’s racist..

I’m not racist or hateful toward different races and surprisingly this does not offend me. I think, at worst, Vogue just ran out of creative artsy-fartsy photog ideas.

But if there was some kind of meaning behind this, maybe it was to demonstrate that times have spawned a better relationship between blacks and whites- and now blackface photography/performance/etc should be taken like a grain of salt.

Or, fuck, maybe the creative director just has no taste and I’m a rotten POS for thinking this is okay.

Blackface is a problem in America that I don’t think most Europeans understand.

If the poster would have shown the whole editorial, you would have seen what the photographer was trying to say in the editorial, he was trying to show the model Lara Stone in many different looks with different skin tones. Although, I don’t like the blackface because I felt it wasn’t needed, the whole editorial should have been posted to get the point of the editorial.

I see no problem with it, I think they are nice pictures.

Really at a loss of words..only thing I can say is I think the lady is powerful..Like the first pic only..all the rest make me shudder.

@stuipdthing@xanga - nice rebuttal. couldn’t have said it better.
As far as the “black face’ goes… they’ve done this on past episodes of America’s Next top Model(not to mention; in other magazines before now)… and as a black man who is famous for calling foul when offended by racist ANYTHING; this is no big deal or cause for concern.

That is so funny, however it reminds me of that one rapper that painted himself white for his music video, and around here I heard no one freaking out when it is the exact same thing.

I love it. Edgy and sparks conversation. Great job fashion mag.

@MoonFaeEyryan@xanga - my thoughts exactly. maybe the pictures in and of themselves aren’t racist, but its the connotation and the context of blackface in American history. Which also makes me agree with@coolmonkey@xanga - Can you imagine the uproar this would have caused if it had been published in an American magazine?

Maybe that is part of the reason Parisian vogue did these pictures. I’m not a historian by any means, but as far as I know, blackface was something that wasn’t as common in Europe as it was in American vaudeville. Could it be a commentary on contrast between American and Parisian fashion in relation to race? Or maybe just controversial to sell magazines? Either way, it turns me off from Vogue.

I don’t think this is racist, I think they were trying to be original. I don’t think this has anything in common with the Blackface thing because they aren’t trying to make black people look stupid or simple, she’s just posing like any model would… I don’t see any racism in these photographs.

First of all what is so racist about these images ? Second does anyone know why and what the photo shoot’s message was trying put across from a fashion designers and buyer’s perspective? this high fashion and everything has to be eye catching and exaggerated ; and the weirder the better ! That is what Holt couturier is all about !

I don’t particularly think it’s racist. The model is not portrayed as anything other than another model in high fashion clothes… It’s not like they covered her in black and then put her in a jungle like setting to show she’s more primitive or anything like that. I think it looks interesting and is a modernistic approach to a high fashion shoot.

The only thing that bothers me is WTF happened to her eyebrows?! I mean, come on, if you can paint the girl dark, you can at least add a couple lines above the eyes! Seriously.

I’ts a bit weird, but it has something.

I’m Dutch too by the way! And I’m proud of our models. Lara Stone, Doutzen Kroes! and much more.

They probably just needed her features/look + black skin.. so they painted her black.

I don’t think it’s racist..

@stuipdthing@xanga - he said psychological, not physiological
and I think he meant the perceived difference between races, not actual genetics and such difference.

@SamiiSaysHaii@xanga - Yeah, weird.. that’s all I’ve got, too.

That’s really, REALLY offensive. I know I won’t be buying an issue of Vogue any time soon.

@CholericAndMelancholy@xanga - That IS racist. How naive are you? Seriously? Why the hell wasn’t an African-American model good enough for the photo shoot? Why paint a Dutch woman in blackface, then print it, knowing that it WILL offend some people?

WHAT THE DECK MAN?!

xo

That’s kinda sick in my opinion tbh :/ Why couldn’t they have just used a black model?! It makes no sense :/

Don’t Like (N) x

Racist? Perhaps not… she’s portrayed no differently than the photos of her in white skin. Ignorant? Definitely. They could have painted her any other colors besides flesh tones if the effect was supposed to be an artistic approach.

@morbidcoronerchick@xanga - If it were a black model or an asian model that was painted white, you wouldn’t say that it was racist. Double standard much?  They probably didn’t think about it before they printed it.  It’s just art.

I think if i just saw the blackface, I’d have the same reaction- why not just hire a black model, this is racist etc.

But, the fact that she is painted later seems like they are making a statement something like color is what is perceived and its mutable. But if they were making a statement like skin color doesn’t change who you are, maybe they should have included yellowface too.

@CholericAndMelancholy@xanga - well, just to say, if someone did do that, I would still call foul on it. there are racial implications if a black model or an asian model was done up in whiteface. also, do you know of any instances of whiteface? i’ll show you what popped up in google images (very basic, I know): yellowface, blackface, and whiteface.

its not a big deal surely.
i dont even think its racist either. people go on about racism so much that it just gets confusing and the more people use the word wrongly the more it becomes just another term that isnt taken seriously.

just my opinion

confusingly weird

It’s pretty lame.

This is what gets me about fashion. They have to be SO OUT THERE… that they eventually DO cross lines.

Blackface. Seriously? What the crap? It does nothing for fashion, except show how stupid people can be to try and be “different” for their magazine.

Stupid.

@CholericAndMelancholy@xanga - #1, be quiet. You don’t know me; you wouldn’t know my reaction. #2, I don’t have any frickin’ double standards. If some Asian or black model was painted white, I’d have the same reaction. I’d call it racist and I’d think it was ridiculous.

Well, the pictures aren’t that great either.

that’s terrible. the makeup artist wasn’t even good enough to keep the model from looking like shoop-da-whoop.

wtf…  it is weird, something looks awkward

Why didn’t they hire a black model?

Err… maybe the message is, “everyone can be black, even the white people, thus — races are an illusion”? Trying to make some sense out of this here. I give them the benefit of the doubt that Vogue Paris must have more taste than what it seems like.

I understand the background of blackface being pretty racist, but its not like they’re using it the same way? Like what @frozencherries@xanga said, its not like they’re trying to be racist by using it. It was just what they wanted to do to make an artistic fashion statement.

Considering the juxtaposition of the photo with the super dark full body makeup and the photo with the bleach white full body makeup, I think this may have been done for artistic purposes rather than racial reasons.

With the history of blackface and how quick people are to play the race card and get super offended at the mere word, it was a foolish idea, however, I am still hesitant to say this particular photoshoot is racist.

Write a letter to the magazine, and perhaps the editor might be able to adress your complaints about these pictures. 

It looks to me as if the second photo, looks like the creator is trying to achieve a pastel effect. Overall, I think it’s just a play in colour contrast, texture and space. To me, I don’t think of race looking at these photography, it just looks pretty abstract to me. 

i just dont see why they couldnt choose a black model. Why paint the white girl in brown, full body makeup? I know there are some nice looking black models out there that would have done the shoot. hell! they could have chosen me!! That would save alot of controversy & make everyone happy. plus the pics are not even nice looking!

that is really weird. i dont even know why they would do that

Huh.  Doesn’t make much sense to me.

seriously, there is no such thing as race because let’s face it, you can’t group people together with characteristics and say they are a certain race because there is always one person to throw those traits out the window and it all goes to hell.

study anthropology a bit and you would agree.

anyways, i don’t see what the big deal is. i could get all up and arms over the movie “the white chicks” but i don’t. it’s modeling, it’s supposed to be artistic with a message. i am not sure what the message is, but regardless, it’s called an open mind and stop throwing the race card around.

obama does it enough and i am getting really sick of hearing about it. i don’t know about you but white people are NOT the only people who are racsist on this earth. drive through southside and black people come out with baseball bats to hit your car as you drive through “their” neighborhood because you are white. so really?

additionally, for the idiots that says racism only happens in america, seriously? what is wrong with you? racism was in europe when they were first exposed to africans and they thought they were just white people with black paint on them.

study a little bit before you open your mouth and just stop spazzing about stuff, because when you do, you make it into a big huge issue that shouldn’t even be an issue but it becomes one because you make it one.

peace.

@frozencherries@xanga - But what is the interest in it? If we think of her as white painted black, what is to be gained by seeing her as black unless to reinforce that “White” is the standard of beauty and those who are actually black aren’t as beautiful as their white counterparts. Even if we are supposed to think of her as black, would it be a fair representation or would anyone actually believe it?

I’m not saying this is the conscious motive of the magazine or the photographer or anything, and the only way to know would be to hear it from the person who thought of the idea. However, given the history of blackface, as others have mentioned, it does seem to either be ignorant of that history, or, even worse, play on it in order to stir people up. I’ve noticed this happening over the past few years more and more with magazines. The cover with Lebron James comes to mind. 

I don’t honestly get what’s wrong here. The lady isn’t wearing blackface to portray black people negatively in the photo. She looks pretty, black or white. So?

And no, I’m not black or white, if you were wondering.

@riahlOmeal@xanga - Scientifically, you are correct that race does not exist. Unfortunately, race does exist in terms of society and has been used to separate groups of people so that one might hold more power than another. While it would be nice if this were not the case, or if we were past this, the truth is we aren’t and simply disregarding something that obviously carries a lot of weight, like a photo of a woman in blackface, is a detrimental attitude to learning from the mistakes of people who came before us.

There are instances where talking about race isn’t necessary, but when it comes to this, I think it’s the only topic worth discussing.

I think everyone is overanalyzing here. 

She’s shown as white AND black so that hopefully the readers will see all the pictures and understand that beautiful can come in any skin tone and race. But of course, everyone pulls out their history books and points to an instance in the past where blackface/yellowface was used to mock other races. Is the point of the technique in these photos to sell the idea that black people aren’t as pretty as whites? NO. They’re both (supposed) to be equally attractive-looking.
The main idea, for all of you whom seem to miss it: It doesn’t matter what color skin you’re in, if you look at these photos and put away your freaking history textbooks, you’ll see that it doesn’t take white skin to be beautiful.

people need to chill out and stop saying that everything is racist. it’s paint, chill the fuck out. if you don’t like it, don’t look at the pictures.

I remember watching The Sarah Silverman show once where she had put on blackface. I didn’t know whether to laugh or just change the channel. I mean of course you can’t help but to think of the historical use of blackface but it literally is painting the face a dark shade to “look” african American. Blackface has got me stomped…

@Meowmeowkimmaee@xanga - Awesome comment (:

I thought blackface was kind of..out-dated? It’s not artistic at all, just offensive and silly.

im trying to look at this from all angles.
uhh..let’s see. They used the same model to portray black and white people.
i mean, why not?..don’t you usually see models dressed up as some famous celebrity on mag covers?..you do. Using the same model here i think implies equality. Look at the way she is dressed in all the shots. They didn’t make the black face one any more simpler than the white painted one. The other message I get is: Color is color. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a stupid thing to hold a grudge against something like that. Every color is meant to be beautiful.Sharon as a black isn’t exactly ugly..if only she had eyebrows to go with it. Black women are gifted with beautiful bold eyebrows..usually.Beauty comes in all colors,shapes and sizes. Otherwise..things could get boring, if you know what i mean. The Diversity and variety is the things that spice up life, just like each of our personalities. Some ‘flaws’ you assume on yourself maybe the most beautiful/attractive thing in you for all others.There are people who wish they were you, even if you don’t know it. Its nothing to get offended about..just depends on your perspective of view. I mean, i look like a mixed ethnicity girl..Indian/African with milk coffee skin tone,dark straight hair, almond eyes, thick eyebrows..tiny body..145cm height..and this is what i think about it. Guess this helps to portray the shots above as an approach to equality, rather than an attempt at racism.

They changed around people’s races on an ANTM shoot.  I don’t see why this is considered racist and that wasn’t. 

I think a lot of people, white people in particular, call out racism without looking deeper into what they’re seeing.  When the model is in black face, she isn’t holding a piece of watermelon and wearing a grill in her mouth.  She looks classy, graceful, and alluring, just as she does in the picture with her regular skin tone.  So they’re equal. 

@IfIWereAchilles@xanga - well, since i am an artist how about we don’t talk about “race” and we discuss what i think is obviously being portrayed here–thought. most people seem to be lacking this ability and jump on the bandwagon. i am happy to be able to think differently i guess, because like i said, anthropologically and socially, (because they are part of the same thing) race doesn’t exist, but you know what does? the arts.

picture numer 1. notice the obvious texture on her body? you would think that if this person was being “blackfaced” that the make up artists could do a better job of portraying this, but they don’t. they show texture, why do you think that is? because it’s supposed to be noticed for a reason. notice how the white background is smooth? yup, contrast.

picture 2. blue green and purple magenta are compliments of  eachother. in fashion, notice the leopard print vs. the faux fur. yup, opposites of each other in regards that you wear one or the other, not both. additionally because of continuous contrast, that is why this girl is white mainly compared to the blackface of the initial photo and why she seems to have a “pastel” affect, which is the opposite effect of texture.

picture 3. use what i just said from the first 2. it is ALL constrast. white vs. black and it’s mostly carried out about the necklace. notice the contrast between her leggings vs. her facial expression, they are opposites in my opinion.

when you look beyond what society says only then can you really begin to analyze and possibly come up with a hint of the truth.

@riahlOmeal@xanga - Please try to hold off the pretentiousness here. I haven’t the slightest idea what the magazine was attempting with this specific photo shoot. Is it stemming from race? The only way to know is to either ask, granted they tell the truth, or to be one of the people who thought up this idea. I’m not trying to invalidate whatever artistic qualities the photos have. That is for the individual to judge. All I’m saying is that it is completely acceptable and reasonable to talk about race in this context. The image is of a white woman made to look like a black woman. While you may not think that race exists socially, well, you might want to try thinking again because that is exactly where it exists.

I’m not suggesting we label the magazine racist. I am not suggesting we assume they were trying to do harm by publishing these photos. All I’m suggesting is that people be able to talk about what this could mean in terms of race without people acting holier than thou and pretending that this might not be offensive to people.

that’s a no-no. smh.

@IfIWereAchilles@xanga -i have no idea what the magazine is saying either, what i am saying is that perhaps if people looked at it differently it wouldn’t need to be offensive to anyone, but the majority here just assume that it’s race directed, and what i commented back regarding artwork is another example of what it could be assumed as. that was my point and sorry if i didn’t get that across very well. my english/writing skills aren’t that great.

additionally, socially it is assumed that race labels will exist because most people don’t understand the concept of there not being such thing as race because they haven’t been exposed to anything differently. even if people do understand the concept of no race, it’s hard because a lot of people kind of do have a superiority complex and it’s hard to not objectify people and treat them as 100% equals. i have experience with this and i know other people have experience with this.

peace.

@Adrenaline_Unknown@xanga - You’re right. It doesn’t take white skin to be beautiful. The question for me remains: why paint a person black to show that instead of having more than one model in the same outfit?

@morbidcoronerchick@xanga - ok what is up with the personal attacks? You’re right I don’t know you, but you don’t know me either. You have your opinion and I have mine. Why don’t you go harrass some of the other people here who share the same opinion as me? You may not like my opinion and that’s fine.  Call me naive or whatever, but I honestly don’t think these pictures were taken with the intent of being racist.  If you choose to think the world is such a horrible place with racism everywhere then go ahead, but it will only make you angry.  I’m just choosing to be positive and to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t want to think that they would take those pictures to be racist. So go ahead and call me naive all you want.  Your reaction is exactly what they were hoping for.

If this had been released in America there would have been an uproar. Many people would consider this racist. And while I don’t necessarily think its meant to be derogatory towards blacks, primarily in the context of the other pictures, the connotation of “blackface” cannot be ignored. Blackface represents a grievously painful time in American history that many for obvious reasons would not like to revisit. I think while I can’t nearly begin to relate to slavery I know I have family members who were hung and raped after slavery was abolished and can relate to the turmoil far better than any white person can. That may offend some but its true, moreover why would anyone want to be able to relate to something so horrible? Some of the sons and daughters of slaves are still alive, try to think of what they feel about the progression of the world after seeing this. And no, blackface and whiteface aren’t the same thing because there is no history of whites being beaten and worked to death by blacks. And that’s the bottom line.

I guess I sway both ways. At face value these pictures mean nothing and yes they are rather strange and I don’t see why a black woman couldn’t have been featured but i guess that wasn’t the message Vogue was trying to portray. What ever the message was I do believe that it was rash and thoughtless of Vogue to release this knowing that American readers would see and many would associate it with racism in light of America’s history.

I think it’s odd…but, I have to wonder what statement they were trying to make with this. It seems like they considered it art and art usually has a message or statement along with it. Sometimes it’s supposed to be interpretable by the person seeing it, other times it is a fixed message or statement. It would be nice if Vogue Paris would let us know what they were thinking, that is for sure. :p

I think I will wait to pass a judgment until I hear a statement from them saying what the heck they were thinking. O.o; I will give them a hopeful benefit of the doubt.

These people are seriously running out of ideas.

@frozencherries@xanga - 

It’s not the same as when you put it on as a child, because you didn’t know exactly what it meant and you weren’t showing yourself to the public.

“Blackface” has an extremely racist history, and if the stylists/designers had half a brain, they would know about this and not use it on models 

@michaelealy514@thepopsite - i didn’t know “what it meant” because it didn’t mean that when i did it. it doesn’t mean that when theyre doing it either. they’re not making a racist statement.

maybe what they’re saying is were all the same no matter what our color is. this girl is the same girl no matter what the shade on her skin.

god people, get over it. this isn’t racist.

@frozencherries@xanga - I think it’s the same concept as people saying “nigga” or “nigger” because it’s something in the past that once hurt african americans some people consider it racist.

I do feel like their intentions were good, and the point that someone made about them wanting to start controversy was probably the reason why. one thing that makes me mad is that “yellowface” or whatever happens so much yet it’s considered okay.

…idk it’s just an interesting thing for me to think about

also

@frozencherries@xanga – sorry if someone pointed that out already im too lazy to read more of the comments right now.

WTH?!?!?!

Would it still be racist if a black woman painted her skin white for an editorial? No, you guys would just say it’s “artsy” and “controversial” but no one would say it was racist. I don’t find this racist at all, I think it truly IS artistic and though it may pose as controversial that’s what art is all about, and fashion and photography is obviously art.

Also, she’s not being rude or trying to live up any stereotypes.

if they can paint asains brown and put them in movies and call them native american then why cant a white girl get painted brown/white/brown and white?

“And no, blackface and whiteface aren’t the
same thing because there is no history of whites being beaten and
worked to death by blacks. And that’s the bottom line.”

*cough* I think that answers your question. Why bother to post  anything if you don’t read other people’s posts?

It’s artistic expression through fashion. Not a racist attack on anyone. And trying to use blackface and/or yellowface to justify the ‘racism’ in the images is

ridiculous

since there is nothing that portrays stupidity or inferiority

you should look up blackface before talking about it.  it’s not necessarily just a matter of coloring the skin; it entails exaggerating stereotypes of a race (typically african americans), ranging from physical appearance to perceived characteristics and behaviors.  it’s basis is indeed incredibly racist, and often sought to make a mockery of the race.  what i perceive from these pictures is not racism but that the fashion industry is weird.

I really don’t think it was meant to be racist but that doesn’t really make it okay

blackfaces can be great. just they pick the wrong models.

I think it would have been fantastic if they were painted a less natural looking color… gold or silver could have been really nice and a lot more complimenting to the model