"King Kong" Vogue cover? What's your take?

[bean fidhleir]

Samir Husni, a University of Missouri academic who is America's leading magazine industry analyst, said that he believed the image was deliberately provocative, given the care devoted to producing the Vogue covers.

"When you have a cover that reminds people of King Kong and brings out those stereotypes - black man wanting white woman - it's not innocent," he said.

John Hoberman, a University of Texas professor who has written on race and sport, claimed the cover "was an obvious and egregious exploitation of an old racist theme - the potential violation of a white woman by a physically overpowering black man, or King Kong".

Others have rejected the criticisms as just one more example of American hyper-sensitivity and political correctness over race. "America's got baggage, but some of it - including a non-existent racial slight - needs to be checked indefinitely," wrote Kyra Kyles in the Chicago Tribune.

More at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wkong130.xml

[SeattleGirl]

1. LeBron looks like the intense basketball player that he is, and Gisele

looks like she's having a blast, not like she's scared.

My opinion is obviously different that others, but I really don't find it offensive at all.

[Mike Daniels]

32. Outcries from the church of the "perpetually offended"

If I saw that cover in the magazine racks prior to the controversy the "King Kong" thing wouldn't have even crossed my mind.

Even with the "image" now out there, I still don't see it. I see it as you do - a basketball player standing next to a woman who is enjoying herself.

[Rex]

2. The guy is showing his war face and she is just kinda hanging there

off his arm...and all I gotta say is so fucking what. Some profs have way too much time on their hands and like to over analyze everything, because everything has to have a deeper meaning donchaknow!

[Echo In Light]

33. Yet such orgs pay marketing/psych teams to effectively hone in on the public mind

It's not done randomly without intent - too much $ on the line. Denying this reality of the corporate culture is like agreeing with the republican fostered mythos that the mainline corporate media has a "liberal" bias.

[bbgrunt]

81. I agree--this is what "framing" is all about. We talk

about verbal framing of an argument, but pictures also provide a frame of reference that is perhaps even more persuasive. It is exactly that most people can discount this picture as nothing to take offense with that this kind of subliminal message works.

Don't kid yourselves. They don't pay these marketing and message people megabucks for nothing.

[Echo In Light]

108. "It is exactly that most people can discount this picture as nothing to take offense with...."

Exactly. Precisely. You nailed it with that comment.

[Rex]

90. Not really, the media is hurting our country day in and day out by

keeping a lid on the BFEE and their dirty dealings. The other is just a magazine that didn't go to war with anyone or destroy our economy. And I know it is hard to believe, but sometimes a picture is just a picture.

[Echo In Light]

111. Re: corporate marketing, a central part of dumbing down the populace involves selling...

The people imposed wants and needs via warped ideals wrought with ulterior agendas, namely to keep them pacified as obedient consumers. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it's factual analysis. At the turn of the 20th century when American political thinkers were brainstorming ideas on how to keep their rigged game going, they devised the "manufacture of consent," {Walter Lippman} which specifically took aim at people when they were away from their workplace. They knew that in order to more efficiently control the public mind, they had to target people during their "free"/leisure time.

Chomsky describes the manufacture of consent: "Democracy permits the voice of the people to be heard, and it is the task of the intellectual to ensure that this voice endorses what leaders perceive to be the right course." Propaganda Review, Winter 1987-88; David Barsamian, KGNU

[Indenturedebtor]

149. It is done mostly randomly

This is not a huge national ad campaign. I worked in advertising for awhile selling ads to companies like coka cola, dyson, epson, microsoft, etc. You would be surprised how disorganized these companies are even when selling to their biggest and most important markets. Then they put ads together in like 2 days.

Come on.

[panader0]

3. Much ado over nothing

[seabeyond]

4. when i look, i see people having fun making a cover

i would not have thought anything of it if i hadnt seen a comparison to king kong yesterday in a couple threads. also, not being a bigot, it doesnt hit me wrong in that area. i would not have looked twice at this cover.

[Crabby Appleton]

5. Annie Leibovitz's was inspired by this WW I poster

not offensive to me

[Thickasabrick]

24. She never said that - that was someone's theory. nt.

[krkaufman]

30. Yes, my theory.... though I don't literally say that it was Annie Liebovitz's inspiration.

Rather, I've been saying since last Thursday (3/27), that it is inarguable that the WWI poster was the inspiration for the Vogue cover photo. Whether Annie Liebovitz was familiar with the propaganda poster or not is in question (p'raps someone else staged this particular photo), but it is beyond reason to think that the similarities are mere coincidence.

The similarities are simply too many to be accidental...

• Outfit colors match counterparts
  
• LeBron’s stance, legs apart and hunched over
  
• LeBron’s facial expression, a jaw agape teeth-baring roar
  
• LeBron’s “weapon”(a basketball) in his right hand
  
• LeBron’s white-tipped tennis shoes match the hairless, lightened toes on the brute
  
• The damsel is in/on LeBron’s left arm
  
• Giselle’s stance, with her feet inside LeBron’s, but her body angling outward
  
• Giselle’s dress neckline, revealing as much of her upper torso as possible while remaining G-rated and cover photo ready.
  
• Giselle’s hair style; note the wavy curls
  
  

[dysfunctional press]

47. one problem tho...

in the poster, the woman's left leg is in front of the right, but in the vogue cover, the model's right leg is more prominent...
shoots your entire theory straight to hell. :shrug:




btw- :sarcasm:

[krkaufman]

66. chortle! : ) n/t

[PSPS]

6. Who came up with "King Kong?"

If this cover elicits thoughts of King Kong in someone, that says more about them than this cover. When I saw it, King Kong never crossed my mind. How silly.

Maybe this piece is intended to increase Vogue's circulation than anything else.

On edit: Oh, I see now in a post after mine -- the old recruiting poster. I guess older people may remember that but it was before my time. After seeing it, I think the imitation is kind of inspired, certainly not any racial reference (ape = black man.)

But rest assured, we'll be seeing plenty of ads in the "scary black man" theme if Obama wins the primary.

[bbgrunt]

82. you don't have to relate to king kong to imagine

a big scary black man taking over this country--as the woman is very reminiscent of the statue of liberty.....a totally disgusting marketing subliminal message.

[Bake]

132. I think that's disgusting.

LeBron is probably greatest b-ball player currently in the game (sorry, Kobe), and the cover just shows his intensity in a fun way. The first person who mentioned King Kong (which never crossed my mind, subliminally or otherwise), well, the first hen that cackles, as they say, laid the egg.

I thought we got over the black man/white woman thing decades ago ...

Bake

[bbgrunt]

145. you only need to study a little about the "hidden

persuaders" to understand that all media has a hidden message. This imagery did not occur to me until I noticed the strange, uncomfortable position the female was in and the incongruous clothing she was wearing. It's not like she was attending a bb game. If it is only about the fierceness of LeBron, what the heck is the female doing in the picture? And why is she wearing a flowing, clingy gown?

I agree that the image can also easily be interpreted in a sexist manner. Wonderful. Two messages for the price of one picture.

For those of you who don't want to see the implications, all I can say is that there has been a very vigorous campaign to diversify media with images of female news anchors, positive black and hispanic role models, etc. in an effort to knock down those kind of stereo types that limit the imagination. To the extent that that has worked, great.

It is wonderful to contemplate that calling it out when it occurs might be succeeding, but I fear that the bravado with which some people proclaim victory only means that they no longer see the cages and walls that are being built around them.

[noamnety]

7. Elephant in the Room

We're looking at a magazine that exists for the purpose of objectifying and commodifying women. In this photo, we see a woman being used as an accessory to enhance the masculinity of a man (ultimate trophy wife).

This is one step away from looking at KKK literature and saying "Hey, wait a minute, isn't this image they're using kinda sexist?!"

[GoneOffShore]

12. Gee, you must be getting a different Vogue than I read.

It's a fashion mag, designed to sell stuff.

If it's doing any objectifying and commodifying, it would appear to do it without favor.

One could always deconstruct the photo the other way and say it's about the guy being the trophy, but I guess that would never occur to some people.

[TheDebbieDee]

15. Don't worry, LWFern. You're not losing your mind..........

I chalk this up to my generation doing a much better job of NOT passing along alot of the subtle racial info that was forced on us onto this younger generation.

I still haven't figured out if the younger people being unable to identify harmful racial stereotypes is a good thing or not!

[Echo In Light]

36. I don't see it as "racial" as much as it plays on "traditional" gender stereotypes

Sexism runs rampant in fascist states.

[Echo In Light]

35. Not exactly subtle, is it? Amazing...

It brings to mind the standard "Popeye" cartoon scenario:

He and Oliveoil will be getting along just fine, then macho bully Bluto arrives, sweeping Oliveoil off her feet with his brutish, authoritarian aggression.

She quickly succumbs, leaving Popeye in the dust. He gets angry, eats his spinach, fortifying him with big heap bounds of male aggression, at which point he gives chase, kicks Bluto's ass, much to the delight of Oliveoil, who, apparently only capable of feeling sexual urges for the most dominant male figure, returns to his side as his steady gal.

What horrendously fucked up gender role messages!

[Bonobo]

50. Looks fine but I can see where people scared of black men might have an issue.

[Lance_Boyle]

52. used as an accessory?

Do you see the words printed in English below the picture? "Best Bodies." Bodies - plural. Not "NBA superstar and pretty object." If either is objectified, both are objectified. Which kinda makes sense, seeing as how it's a fucking magazine cover. Eye candy on a magazine cover? I'm SHOCKED!

As another posted said up-thread - this is manufactured outrage by the professionally and terminally offended.

[Echo In Light]

70. Commenting on the underlying messages of marketing doesn't automatically equate to "outrage"

As different aspects of this conversation have taken shape, it seems there's some who seek to nullify any point made re corporate mass marketing by trivializing the entire discussion as "outrage." I don't see much outrage here except from those who are angry that not everyone doesn't see more in this type of imagery than two beautiful people having fun. Apparently this then warrants snide personal swipes and name calling.

[Terran]

64. I don't see the "accessorization" you speak of

They seem co-equal to me; or, if anything, he's accessorizing her, given that Vogue is a magazine with a female audience. He seems to emphasize her femininity.

I would also say that the choice of image is deliberate and meant to be provocative and challenge assumptions...as if to say, "Yes, there's a sexual dynaminc implied here that exists in real life, so get over it." I daresay Vogue readers are a rather sophisticated bunch, by and large, and aren't likely to be disturbed by this. If other people are, well, they may have issues.

[Echo In Light]

67. So that's your ideal of femininity, Vogue readers are sophisticated, and anyone who doesn't agree...

...With your perceptions has "issues?"

I will agree with you though that both symbols are sold "co-equally;" on one level, both are sold as exalted gender ideals to be emulated, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

[Terran]

71. Guess I wasn't clear...

as you're reading all kinds of things into what I said.

1) No, she's not my "ideal" of femininity. Where'd I say that? I said that her femininity was accessorized by his masculinity.
2) I meant that Vogue readers are sophisticated as regards racial issues, in the sense that most of them can look at the image and see the implied irony and the art, and not attach a lot of cultural baggage to it.
3) By "issues" I was referring to racism issues, not the issues expressed about the image in this thread. That could have been clearer.

And of course they're "exalted"--it's a fashion magazine, every person in it is shown in an "exalted" manner.

[Echo In Light]

75. Gotchya. Thanks for clarifying

Re fem ideals, I thought it was implied in your comment.

[noamnety]

76. Try imagining the two people swapped.

You'll rarely if ever see that. That's because in media gendertyping, men act, women accessorize them as they act.

[Terran]

88. I think it's subjective

as to whether she's merely accessorizing him. She's a model, so she *is* acting in her own right; she's doing what she does, just as he appears to be doing what he does. No offense, but I think you are seeing what you want to see here; there's nothing wrong with that, in fact, but like any sort of art, it's open to interpretation as to meaning.

[noamnety]

89. Have you ever studied gender and media?

I'm asking cause I feel like I'm arguing art history with someone who's never had an art history course. I'm kind of wondering what your background is in this field - if you are speaking just about your personal opinion about this one image absent of historical context, or if it's an area you've studied at all, even informally.

[Terran]

95. I've never had an art history course

but I don't feel like I need an academic background to discuss the issue from a common sense standpoint. This is my personal opinion about this one image, but I don't think you can live in this culture and have no notion of the historical context whatsoever (well, that's just me; I'm sure a lot of people never notice that stuff). I just think you shouldn't assume that the intention behind an image is the same as what historical context tells you it appears to be.

[noamnety]

98. I included "informally" in that list

because I don't think you need an academic background necessarily.

If I posted some material here on the subject, would you be interested in looking at it?

[Terran]

131. Yes I would

I respect your opinions on this and many other topics, even if I don't quite agree with you on this one.

[northzax]

94. he's an athelete, she's a model

go find the old Swimsuit editions of SI with the female athletes and their accessory men. then they arte the active ones, and the men are the passive ones.

[I work for workers]

137. Nonsense. Vouge empowers women by forcing men to recognize them as sexual beings.

It's just as much part of womens liberation as Ms. and Playboy are.

[Individualist]

8. The King Kong comparison would never have occurred to me

I see an intense basketball player and a model having fun posing for a magazine cover.

[dysfunctional press]

73. it's not king kong, but did you see this ww1 poster/comparison from upthread...?

[ColbertWatcher]

9. What do you expect from a guy from Texas?

He's obviously trying to justify his Texas-inclination to want to execute someone.



What is it with people from Texas being so wrong all the time?

I can understand wanting to get attention by saying something provocative, but come on.

What are they teaching people in Texas?

[GoneOffShore]

10. Great shot

As another poster pointed out, Leibowitz probably didn't base this on a King Kong poster, but on an earlier WWI propaganda piece. Of course the woman in that one wasn't smiling.

My take on this - somebody's got WAY too much time on their hands.

They should be worrying whether Gisele is going to make the three pointer in those shoes.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Manufactured outrage by some.

[GoneOffShore]

13. Yes indeed.

Members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage.

There are lots of them on this board and in this country. They make me weep.

[TheDebbieDee]

14. Manufactured outrage, my ass!

The photo plays to the stereotypical fears of older white males, that of their "wimmens being carried away by those dangerous, menacing Nigra bucks."

The magazine knows that it can sell more magazines by putting such an "in your face" photo on their cover.

I'm a 46 year-old African-American female and I think it speaks volumes that younger Americans have NO idea what I'm talking about.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I don't see it this way

but we're all entitled to our own personal outrages.

ed. Oh, and I'm not a younger American -- I'm considerably older than you -- female, as well, but not African-American, if demographics are relevant.

[TheDebbieDee]

21. For me, the photo re-inforces some blatant

negative racial stereotyping and feeds on the fear of white American males.

But my daughters, who are 23 and 20 years-old are completely clueless. And, as I said in a post upthread, I don't know if their being "clueless" is more of a good thing or more of a bad thing.

My daughters are clueless in a good way because they can't have their emotional buttons pushed, as mine were when I saw the photo. My daughters are clueless in a bad way because they are unable to recognize when they are being insulted.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. I can sort of see your point.

I guess since I'm not African-American, I'm not really in a position to tell you how you should react when you see this image, but in some ways, I think your daughters may have the right idea. By ignoring any racist inferences that might be seen in the photo, they are robbing it of that hurtful power, and it becomes just another stupid magazine cover.

[TheDebbieDee]

25. "They are robbing it of that hurtful power......"

"and it becomes just another stupid magazine cover."

In the case of my daughters, I totally agree with you on that - clueless is good. And no one can push their buttons.

It's just kind of irksome when someone acts as though I am totally INSANE to interpret the photo as I have.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. I apologize ... my knee kind of jerked.

:pals:

[Echo In Light]

34. They should realize when women are encouraged to prostrate themselves to male aggression

Sexism and misogyny remain as a cornerstone of corporate culture, often quite blatantly...if only more were able or willing to acknowledge it. Jock/hip hop culture has many such elements that encourage females to reward aggressors and authoritarians - this carries over into how they perceive social roles/gender roles and propaganda.

[krkaufman]

146. yes, demographics decidedly are relevant

And it's not "personal outrage" when a photographer is resurrecting visual imagery long used to to denigrate whole classes of people.

(Personally, I think it's possible that Liebovitz may have had some positive message she was trying to communicate, but absent any guidance we're left with a much less flattering impression.)

[noamnety]

29. Yep.

It's possible the "artistic" idea behind it was to get as much contrast in there as possible. Dark skin, light skin. Angry, happy. Large, small (look at his stance, taking up space, look at hers). Now I'd be willing to bet that wasn't his natural pose, and the photographer coached him: "look angry." That's the sort of direction you'd give if you want to create an undercurrent of threat.

I think some people see this photo as an individual image and aren't able to do the level of analytical thinking that puts it into historical perspective (young people who don't have that perspective) or question why violence and anger is part of masculinity, or why the photographer saw a large black man and thought "This would be a great photo if he looked really aggressive and threatening and was paired with a woman who was not dressed to be equally aggressive on the court, but instead was dressed to portray helplessness."

This isn't a huge departure of some of Leibovitz's other work, by the way - she has taken some heat in the past for presenting women highly sexist ways: http://parisparfait.typepad.com/paris_parfait/2007/03/women_as_playth.html#more

[GoneOffShore]

43. Sixty year old white guy here and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Vogue knows it can sell magazines by putting good looking people having fun on its covers - nothing more, nothing less.

[noamnety]

57. Your subject line says a lot.

Those who experience racism and sexism most are not white men. It's in the interest of white men generally NOT to see it, and often times it's rendered invisible to them - which is why we talk about unpacking the "invisible" knapsack.

[GoneOffShore]

60. I was pointing out how silly this whole thing is.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

[noamnety]

72. I'm saying you aren't in a position to judge

as much as people who have been living this stuff daily.

As someone who hasn't been a victim, it's much easier for you to dismiss this (and the perspective of minorities in general) as "silly." #11 and #32 on the list. http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

105. Except when someone says the picture is intended to push the buttons of white men

He's telling you he is one, and it doesn't.

[Two Americas]

124. I am trying to find that

Who said "the picture is intended to push the buttons of white men?" What does that even mean?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

80. You're a little out of line here. (nt)

[Two Americas]

102. I believe that you don't

That is exactly why some of us think there is a problem.

Is being a sixty year old white guy supposed to make one automatically an expert on racism and racist imagery and stereotypes? Odd thing to mention in your subject line.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

106. It may be this line.....

"The photo plays to the stereotypical fears of older white males, that of their "wimmens being carried away by those dangerous, menacing Nigra bucks."

He's telling you it doesn't effect him that way. Are you saying he's not enough of an expert on being an older white male to comment on how he feels?

[noamnety]

116. We all get that it doesn't push the buttons of ALL white men.

Likewise, we all get that this image is not offensive to ALL black people, or ALL women.

If his point was that he needs the "NOTALLWHITEMEN" disclaimer, consider it given.

[Two Americas]

121. funny

Had I written it I would have said "the stereotypical fears of some older white males" simply to avoid exactly this opening being used as an excuse to dispute what I was saying and distract people away from my main point.

Funny that we have to be oh so careful with each and every word when we are talking about the dominant and powerful group, lest someone be offended, yet are to grant people wide latitude in what they say when we are discussing those with less power. Funny also that the discussion is always diverted away from minority people and women being offended and instead we talk about the terrible suffering of those in the dominant and powerful group. One cannot say "women are oppressed" without someone saying "how dare you accuse men of being oppressors?" In this way, extreme right wing points of view gain credibility and are accepted as legitimate among liberals.

One would almost think that white males were a persecuted and oppressed group in our society.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

122. No, it makes it sound like you are disappointed.......

.....if a white man apparently doesn't hold the belief that you base your entire premise on.

[Two Americas]

123. no premise, no belief...

...and no disappointment.

Your post makes no sense. Wouldn't I be joyous that my "premise" and "belief" had been vindicated? Of course I don't know what my premise and belief are supposed to be, in your imagination, so it is hard for me to say.

[Zookeeper]

46. Maybe, but how many older white males buy Vogue?

Assuming your theory is true, how could this possibly sell more magazines? Selling magazines and advertising is their job.

It's more likely an ironic play on those stereotypes and fears. I'm older than you, so I am aware of the cultural origins of such an image, but it doesn't have the same negativity for younger people. They would view this as a joke based on ancient history.

[Echo In Light]

48. Thankfully racial barriers have largely broken down. This imagery is a play on gender stereotypes

[Zookeeper]

51. We have a lonnnnggggg way to go on gender stereotypes...

when it comes to "glamor." We've taken a huge step back since the 70's. (Kinda breaks my heart.)

[Echo In Light]

53. Exactly! Thank you. I'm surprised that so few here understand that

One will read countless posts here re the heinous influence of mainline media/corporate media/corporate culture on the public mind ... but that's apparently only applicable when it's dealing in overtly political matters.

[Echo In Light]

54. Also interesting to note some posters responses in other current sex-related threads

[TheDebbieDee]

58. "How could this possibly sell more magazines?"

The simple fact that people are discussing the Vogue cover on this board (and perhaps many others)means that the magazine is getting a lot of free publicity.

Some people, who have never purchased Vogue in the past, may decide to purchase a copy of the magazine to check out the rest of the contents so that they themselves can decide whether or not the magazine has racist content.

[Zookeeper]

87. I don't think the cover would inspire anyone to buy the...

magazine if they found the image to be scary or racist. Everyone knows that Vogue is a frivolous fashion mag. I agree that they were probably trying to grab people's attention; that's what magazine covers are for.

Your contention seemed to be that Vogue would sell more magazines with a cover that scared old white men. I don't think anyone who would even consider buying Vogue gives a damn about what scares "old white men." It sounds like your daughters are viewing this in a modern context, whereas people our age are responding from a historical context.

I don't love the cover or Vogue, but I don't think the intention was deeply calculated to reinforce racist stereotypes, in part because it's unlikely that anyone involved with a stupid, shallow fashion magazine is thinking deeply about anything.

[TheDebbieDee]

96. My contention is as stated in reply #58.........

Second paragraph.

It's not by "scaring old white men" with the cover photo, but by creating enough curiosity about the cover photo to get people to have a look at the magazine to find out for themselves if they think this magazine is a perpetuation of negative racial and gender stereotypes.

But, it's also okay for the two of us to agree to disagree! :loveya:

[Zookeeper]

140. Thank you, DebbieDee....

for a refreshing level of civility which has been sorely missing around this place lately!

:loveya: back at'cha!

[BoneDaddy]

78. This 41 year old white boy

didn't even think about it. Maybe you need to mellow out a bit.

[goodgd_yall]

86. Maybe it's because you're a white boy

And you're not sensitized to racism because it's never been something you had to deal with. Just a thought.

[BoneDaddy]

119. buzz...wrong

I know this is hard but try and follow the context of the conversation. The accusation was that it was fulfulling a white stereotype, not a black one. So, as a "white male" I answered it as such. Or is it just much more easy to sit back in the shadows and take random unrelated pot shots at me because of your bias? Time to grow up a bit and stop reacting like a whining petulant child.

[goodgd_yall]

85. Hear, hear

I think there's a generational disconnect for sure. I get it, you get it, and I'm sure quite a few get what the Texas professor is saying.

[Two Americas]

100. I completely agree

Thanks. I agree with you.

The comments that "I didn't see that" or "that never crossed my mind" are a reflection of how internalized and taken for granted racist imagery is, not "proof" that "it isn't there."

Interesting to see so many right wing "oh those liberals are always making a big deal out of nothing" comments, as well.

We are seeing more and more now that people blame someone who sees something that is wrong as actually being the person who caused the wrong - as though talking about racism causes racism, and that if we all stopped talking about it then it would disappear.

We have imagery that impacts and harms millions of people, yet people come rushing to the "defense" of the poor maligned artist.

"Some of you see racism everywhere!" Yes, that's right. That is because it IS everywhere. That is not the fault of those who are honest and perceptive enough to see it, and courageous enough to speak out about it in a climate where no one wants to hear it.

[alfredo]

16. King Kong was doing just fine until they kidnapped him and sold him

into bondage. He was caged, chained, tormented, and made to perform for the amusement of the masses. I'd be pissed too.

[bean fidhleir]

133. Which, of course, is what happened to Black humans as well.

As I'm moderately sure was your (well-made) point, tho I bet it zips right by many people.

[alfredo]

135. You restored my faith.

[bean fidhleir]

143. I hope in a good way, rather than faith that people are interpretive dolts :-)

[alfredo]

144. In a good way

[laylah]

18. Who cares? Not me. nt

[Beregond2]

19. !

King Kong is the last thing I would have thought of. If you ask me, it is the people reading this into it that are racist. Are they that freaked out by the thought of a black/white sexual coupling, they can only imagine it as rape?

[MADem]

20. Fake controversy to exploit the topic du jour "race," and sell magazines.

Orchestrated, if anything.

Who'd know about that stupid WWONE poster, had not someone dragged it out and waved it around in an effort to get tongues wagging and the word VOGUE on the lips of the chattering cognoscenti? Hell, most people can't name the Presidents in consecutive order from frigging FDR, never mind understand or recognize images of "The Hun" and "Lady Liberty" from the days before the talking pictures...


:eyes:

[Tinksrival]

22. When I first saw this cover I liked it.........

.......Nothing said King Kong to me. :eyes:
I think this academic guy has issues. All I see is two hot people.
I would let Lebron take me to the top of the Empire St.building any day!! :loveya:

[bemildred]

26. I sort of like it, but who really gives a shit about the cover of Vogue? nt

[ellie]

28. Ridiculous.

I am a long-time Vogue subscriber and when I saw this I assumed he was an intense professional basketball player. Isn't that what he does? I have only vaguely heard of him.

[Echo In Light]

31. She symbolically represents his trophy for fostered male aggression

[GoneOffShore]

40. Uh, no.

And as I said up thread, she could well be the one claiming the trophy here.

If she was "his trophy for fostered male aggression" :eyes: , would she be smiling as broadly as she is?

Get out more. It'll do you good.

[Echo In Light]

42. No need to be an asshole about it

The underlying premise is that she's happy to fulfill that role. That's how I see it. If you don't, fine.

[GoneOffShore]

59. Always happy to see a member

from the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage waxing academic over something. It gives me a good laugh.

As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar."

:hi:

[Echo In Light]

61. Reading posts online is how you get off, yet you tell me to "get out more"

:wtf:

Get over yourself.

[goodgd_yall]

84. You're being obnoxious

Can't tolerate an opinion different from yours it seems.

[bean fidhleir]

130. "As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar.""

But, tellingly, he said that about HIS cigar. He usually considered himself free of the hidden motives he found in everyone else.

[eShirl]

37. I just thought it was playful and sexy

kind of an archetypical male, archetypical female thing

[mondo joe]

38. Non issue. They're mainstream icons doing what they do. NT

[distantearlywarning]

39. Eh. Who cares. n/t

[mwb970]

41. It's kind of cute. No big deal. /nt

[Bucky]

44. Anyone who looks at that photo and sees King Kong has some issues to work out

I doubt this "controversy" has legs outside of a few cranks with not-a-few hang ups.

[alphafemale]

45. I don't think he looks scary at all. It's a playful shot.

A good picture of two beautiful people.

[Fleshdancer]

49. Has anyone asked Annie Leibowitz?

I've seen a few articles on this but none that have actually asked the photographer if this was her intention. I find this odd.

[Hottest Housewife]

55. A Beautiful Man and a Beautiful Woman.

Some people hate beauty.

[Ordr]

56. I think it's humorous.

[robcon]

62. WHO CARES ABOUT A MAGAZINE COVER?

n/t

[Iris]

107. er... yeah. pop culture has no influence at all on ...um... pop culture.

[krkaufman]

63. My take is that the article's author is about 4 days behind the curve

I've been posting since last Thursday AM (3/27), based on a tip from my nephew Weds night, that the Vogue cover photo is based on a WWI military recruitment propaganda poster, and started posting a side-by-side image to illustrate the point. (see here for a detailed list of the similarities)

By Friday afternoon the image had made its way to Huffington Post... via a couple other bloggers*...

HuffPost -- Uncovered: Possible Inspiration For Controversial LeBron James Vogue Cover

Now, Sportsfilter blogger Rogers Cadenhead (via Portfolio.com's Jeff Bercovici) uncovered a possible (likely) inspiration for the Annie Liebovitz shoot: a famous World War I recruitment poster from 1917.

The poster, which shows a gorilla and says "Destroy This Brute," would seem to justify any sort of outrage over the racial stereotypes perpetuated by the Vogue cover.

I don't have a clue who staged the photo to recreate the WWI poster, nor do I know what their intent may have been; but I can understand -- given historical precedents -- how many people will be outraged if/when this relationship hits the wider media, beyond the Intertubes.

But before I let Annie Liebovitz completely off the hook, I need to note that, in my surfing about on this subject, it's become apparent that Liebovitz has a penchant for such recreations; e.g. (h/t Jezebel) What I'm beginning to wonder, now, is whether Liebovitz may not have been trying to draw attention to a book by Stuart Ewen and Elizabeth Ewen, Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality (h/t forgotten) -- a book whose "newly revised, paperback edition", coincidentally, hit the stores at about the same time as the controversial Vogue issue. Things that make you go hmmmm...

Oh, the cover of the book may seem familiar:

Lastly, I must note that both Phawker (3/17) and Jezebel (3/25) had ref'd the WWI propaganda poster before I was ever aware of the Vogue controversy and before my nephew made me aware of the poster; however, both sites failed to push the connection between the poster and the cover photo, opting, instead, to simply embed a pic of the poster in each of their articles.

==========

* Unfortunately, because Cadenhead opted not to credit the source of his information in his initial posts on the subject, the Huffington Post blogger, Danny Shea, missed the mention of DU in Cadenhead's later, expanded post to the 'Watching the Watchers' website:

The comparison was brought to light by K.R. Kaufman on the online community Democratic Underground.

... who credits his nephew.

[SoCalDem]

65. No matter their intent, they "won"

People are talking about it and looking at it..

Isn't advertising/psychology fun?:eyes:

[Echo In Light]

69. Revealing how so few can acknowledge "advertising/psych" techniques exist

[Hugabear]

68. Yeah, let's keep interracial shit off magazine covers

:sarcasm:

Doesn't look to me like she's in danger of being violated, they both look very healthy, vibrant, etc.

[JeanGrey]

74. King Kong? Oh Lord what utter nonsense. I am always amazed

when I read how people dredge this stuff up out of nothing. I thought it was a cool cover.

[BoneDaddy]

77. some people will find something offensive about everything

The dude is a monster ball player. Showing him in a smoking jacket with a permasmile on his face would not be honoring the intense athlete he is.

[Two Americas]

103. damned liberals

Always thinking there is injustice in the world and wanting to talk about it. Why can't they just chill and be mellow? We are trying to have a good time and they keep bringing us down by talking about reality.

[BoneDaddy]

120. I do not mind intelligent discourse

at all. But the pervasive need to project ones own drama into the slightest event gets old, really old, really quick.

[Two Americas]

125. I am confused

I am not expressing any "personal drama" - what might that drama be?

You on the other hand, by characterizing others as having some "personal drama" about this - well, wouldn't that be your personal drama about the subject being injected into the conversation?

What seems pervasive to me is the chronic and widespread inability of people to tell the difference between what is going on in their own head and what is happening in objective reality. You apparently have some personal drama going on about this, so, absent any objective evidence that others do as well, you project that onto them and accuse them of it.

How in the world could people pointing out the use of racial and gender stereotypes be a case of people's "personal drama?" Your "it's getting old really really quick" on the other hand - that is quite clearly your personal drama talking there.

Or do you agree with the right wingers that sexism and racism are merely the relatively trivial matter of individual people being personally offended?

So, you are personally offended by other people being personally offended? Why is your personal drama more valid than that of others? - granting for the sake of argument that racism is a "personal drama" for those who are pointing it out.

We are going around in circles here, my friend, and getting farther and farther away from the "intelligent discourse" that you don't "mind."

Have we made too much progress on racial reconciliation, in your opinion? Is racism discussed too much?

[BoneDaddy]

136. Nice try

I reject the right wing ignorance of the issues you mentioned as well as the left wing embrace of victimization in everything. Both sides bring their personal drama into it. These are my observations.

What flies for discourse in here on issues of racism, sexism, homophobia is often just having someone from the victimized group who feels entitled to slam anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

I am not offended by someone's offense, I just tire from their pervasive need to feel like a victim.

As for racial and gender reconciliation. May I point out that the Democratic presidential candidate will either be a black man or a woman. I would say that is tremendous progress given the relatively short period of time since both were treated as second class citizens. Of course progress can always be made and challenges tackled in the future, but you wouldn't know it by some on these boards.

[Two Americas]

141. "pervasive need to feel like a victim"

If that isn't a right wing talking point, I don't know what is. Yet your posts are those of one who considers themselves to be a victim. Can you see that? You claim that people talking about racism is to persecute you right here - "having someone from the victimized group who feels entitled to slam anyone who disagrees with their point of view" - your own words describe you as the victim.

It is your opinions that are being "slammed" and if you are not comfortable having your opinions challenged, then don't post them. Claiming that someone is using racism to persecute or oppress you is victimization taken to an absurd extreme - exactly what you are accusing others of doing - falsely, I believe.

The elevation of one individual from a disadvantaged or oppressed group may or may not help all in the disadvantaged group. Often, the precise opposite effect is the result, and often that is the intention of those elevating such individuals. Saying that the election of a Black man is proof of racial reconciliation proves my point here for me. You are describing "tokenism" - the use by whites of the example of a few Black individuals achieving power and position as proof that we are "making progress" on race, so therefore people should stop talking so much about racism. The very *reason* that many whites support Black candidates is in an attempt to avoid facing racism - "we supported a Black politician for office - NOW what do you people want from us??"

[BoneDaddy]

151. I don't feel like a victim at all

just pointing out the often inconsistencies that many groups want for themselves yet do not extend to others outside of their tribe. The left is as guilty of it as the right. Saying people get slammed in here does not mean I am a victim, it is pointing out a fact. I do not feel less as a result of it. Please do not project onto me. As for victimization, there is real and authentic victimization where some one has been on the receiving end of violence and threat of violence, then there is the perceived victimization where the individual and group use victimhood as a way to either not be accountable or to excuse their behavior. I am not necessarily saying this is you. You seem to have the ability to at least have a conversation.

As for tokenism, I recognize your point and agree with you cannot judge a group's success by one person. Where I disagree is the left's often refusal to see progress. They want the world to be a perfect little utopia and it quite frankly is not. More time is spent wasting time complaining about things that are not going to change in the next moment but to say that blacks as a culture have not made progress in 40 years is ridiculous. AS for Obama's individual situation, I did not mention him so much as an example of the success of blacks, although it still applies, but that our country, whites and non whites, are embracing him. I have been an Obama fan from the first time I heard him speak. I would love a discussion about race that is balanced and fair. That often does not apply here where whites are supposed to shut up and just listen. Doesn't work that way, at least not for me.

[goodgd_yall]

83. Hmmm

Don't know what the intention was, but, yes, I'd say people who grew up with the "old racist theme" stated in the quote by the Texas professor, will automatically be turned off by this cover.

The thing is, the intent of the article seems to have a positive theme, so it's hard for me to see that Vogue was being malicious.

[Dr. Strange]

91. I think Gisele needs to learn to play defense.

It looks like a foul to me.

[Karenina]

104. But first she needs some "sensible shoes"

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

92. I see two attractive young, healthy, people. n/t

[varelse]

93. The idea that it's ok to relate that handsome athlete

in any fashion at all with a fictional mutant gorilla from an outdated, suck-ass "science" fiction movie doesn't sit well with me AT ALL. What kind of mind automatically pulls that reference out of a magazine cover with two attractive young people who both look like they're healthy and happy?

:puke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Publicity stunt.

They wanted it to be percieved as racist, on purpose.

[nomorenomore08]

99. Not 100% sure, but I think we may have a winner here.

nt

[rucky]

115. I'm going with the hooligan on this one.

I couldn't name who was on the cover of the last 1000 issues of Vogue.

[mitchum]

139. That is indeed the purpose

[janetle]

101. Who cares about the cover when Apolo Ohno is on the inside?!

Yes indeed. In a silver skinsuit also with a model.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

109. It's a cultural Rorschach test

People see what they want to see, when they want to see it.

[nomorenomore08]

110. I think this may be the best post of the thread. Short and to the point.

I would never question another person's right to take offense at something, but on the other hand, that doesn't mean that their view is the absolute truth.

More and more, I'm beginning to believe that the Rorschach test is a microcosm for the way all visual images work on the mind. What's there on the page or the screen is simply raw material, and the real shape and texture of the image is created by our perceptions.

[Echo In Light]

112. Within a corporate culture mired in a 24/7 barrage of marketed images/ideas, the "test" is rigged..

To say the least. People's perceptions are not their own: they're invariably shaped and impacted by a mass marketed cultural environment. The majority response to this thread doesn't surprise me in the least.

[nomorenomore08]

114. I don't disagree with that at all, and the constant barrage of imagery does cloud the mind.

But then again, which comes first, image or perception? It's an impossible game of chicken and egg.

Did the people involved in choosing this cover have sinister intentions? Or were they playing on the sinister intentions of others? Or both? Or neither? My head is spinning in circles just thinking about it. :crazy:

[Echo In Light]

117. Everywhere one turns there are images that promote machismo and subordinate women

Take for example, republicanism. For the majority of Americans who classify themselves as "don't care one way or the other," explaining the evils of repubs/authoritarians is likely going to sound like much ado about nothing. Business as usual. Blah blah blah. They'll tune you out because in their estimation - their opinion, not based in any knowledge of the nuts and bolts of it, just opinions - it simply doesn't matter.

Therefore, in their estimation, if you are concerned, you are then automatically concerned to a fault, because you're making them think, and psych 101 will teach anyone that human beings are basically mentally lazy and will often seek ways to cut corners. Get a group of them together, and they'll want to lynch the dissenter. History repeats such scenarios again and again.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

118. Here's the flaw in your thinking

There are also Republicans who preach to people the evils of being a Democrat or a Liberal. They get tuned out quite a bit too.

Your argument is based on the foundation that you believe you are absolutely 100% right, and everyone else is being ignorant/stupid/blind for not holding the same opinion or seeing it the same way. And to carry it out further, that somehow you are being persecuted for holding this view. Maybe it is more the fact that you keep insisting it is correct, and won't accept that others have a different view.

People aren't agreeing with your opinion on this matter. Some others do. It's life. Accept, and move on.

[Two Americas]

126. the flaw in your argument

No one is insisting they are absolutely 100% right. They are merely trying to discuss it, and others don't offer a different point of view, they attack a point of view - and it is always the same point of view that is attacked and always with the same arguments.

Characterizing those you disagree with in the manner you have here is disingenuous and not a fair and honest argument. Rather than refuting their arguments, you want to speculate about what is wrong with them and with their motives.

The "other point of view" that you say people are not willing to hear is the point of view that we shouldn't talk about this at all, and that those who disagree with you have something wrong with them.

[jmowreader]

113. My take is that Gisele Bundchen is REALLY cute

As for LeBron...would you rather they put old, fat, white and ugly John Force on the cover?

[HuffleClaw]

127. WTF ?

how is this possibly offensive?

[readmoreoften]

128. King Kong: adding a new layer of racism.

No doubt: advertising plays with stereotypes to provoke sales. There is a long history of portraying African-Americans as animalistic and whites as fragile.

But what I find interesting is that by attributing "King Kong" to this image, the person who 'cried foul' actually added a layer of racial pain. It provokes other anti-racist sleuths to look for metaphoric parallels between the presentation of African-American males and "King Kong". Judith Butler talks about this in the book Excitable Speech. She uses the Anita Hill trial as an example: when Anita Hill testified she was forced to repeat what Thomas had said to her, which in essence was a forced sexual performance. By speaking the unwanted language it brings it into fruition. It's like the whole "try not to think of a pink elephant thing." Of course Le Bron looks no more like an elephant than she looks like a thin strip of mucus (now that I said it, though, you might be curious to find points of correlation.)

Just a thought.

[JI7]

129. it looks like she wants him more than he wants her

[bean fidhleir]

142. Or he's all but refusing to play his assigned part

He's not really holding her, much less gripping her. He's barely touching her; his hand isn't involved as a grasping member at all.

Which makes me wonder whether there's a sub-subtext here. And if so: whose and what?

[DS1]

134. thread douchebaggery overload limit has been breached!

everybody run!

[Beetwasher]

147. Holy Shit! (OT)

Whose ass is that in your avatar????? :wow:

[mitchum]

138. Of course that's what it is...it is not as if marketing culture and court hack Annie Leibowitz

are known for their subtlety

[Beetwasher]

148. I Think We All Need To Keep Fucking Eachother Until We're All The Same Color

And this kind of nonsensical bullshit will no longer be an issue.

[Hugabear]

150. Isn't it racist to equate a picture of a black athlete to King Kong?

There's nothing "King Kong" about the pose. Isn't it somewhat racist to assume that people looking at this picture will draw that conclusion?