skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What Kind of Statement?
Earlier last year, Kate Moss appeared on the cover of the September 21 issue of the UK publication The Independent. No, she wasn’t modeling the latest in haute couture from the runways, or even the new line of jeans from Calvin Klein. Rather, she was photographed naked... save for the blackface and the full-on bodypaint. While the issue was meant to educate readers about the struggles of African women and actually benefited the RED initiative, with half of its revenue going to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, at times, the controversy over the appropriateness of the photo of Kate Moss seemed to dominate public discussion. The day after the release of the issue, black British writer Hannah Pool opined in the Guardian, “This picture of Moss is little more than a cheap, old-fashioned blacking-up trick, and the fact that it is being used to highlight the battle against AIDS in Africa is a disgrace.” She went on to question: “What exactly is this picture of Moss-as-African-woman supposed to portray? What does it say about race today when a quality newspaper decides that its readers will only relate to Africa through a blacked-up white model rather than a real-life black woman?”
The publication of the photo led D&D to wonder: What qualifies something as art? Should art be immune from charges of racism or insensitivity? When is imagery provocative and subversive? And when is it just miscalculated and uninspiring? Why is it okay for Kate Moss to cover herself in black bodypaint to demonstrate just how enlightened and worldly she is? And how might we differently interpret a photo of a black person donning white bodypaint?
Earlier last year, Kate Moss appeared on the cover of the September 21 issue of the UK publication The Independent. No, she wasn’t modeling the latest in haute couture from the runways, or even the new line of jeans from Calvin Klein. Rather, she was photographed naked... save for the blackface and the full-on bodypaint. While the issue was meant to educate readers about the struggles of African women and actually benefited the RED initiative, with half of its revenue going to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, at times, the controversy over the appropriateness of the photo of Kate Moss seemed to dominate public discussion. The day after the release of the issue, black British writer Hannah Pool opined in the Guardian, “This picture of Moss is little more than a cheap, old-fashioned blacking-up trick, and the fact that it is being used to highlight the battle against AIDS in Africa is a disgrace.” She went on to question: “What exactly is this picture of Moss-as-African-woman supposed to portray? What does it say about race today when a quality newspaper decides that its readers will only relate to Africa through a blacked-up white model rather than a real-life black woman?”
The publication of the photo led D&D to wonder: What qualifies something as art? Should art be immune from charges of racism or insensitivity? When is imagery provocative and subversive? And when is it just miscalculated and uninspiring? Why is it okay for Kate Moss to cover herself in black bodypaint to demonstrate just how enlightened and worldly she is? And how might we differently interpret a photo of a black person donning white bodypaint?
No comments:
Post a Comment