| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2004 06:52:13 PM · #26 |
First off, let me say that I am a very paisty white colour caused by to much time indoors working late at night.
I didnt find the shot offencive, firstly because I hadnt realised it was "black face," the same shot could have been created with a genuine black guy! While the face was "very black," I guess some people dont realise that black skin does indeed come in a variatly of colours from the west indian "brown" to the south african "black" although blacks of all hues, at least in the UK, do much prefer to be called black and are proud of that term, finding "coloured" a more offencive term.
Even had I known that the subject had blacked up, I still would not have found it offencive, and neither would the majority of my friends... Some of which, if I have to actually make a distinction, are black...
Perhaps some of the reason for some finding it offencive is a USA cultural thing... although that said, it was not that long ago that robinsons jam finally removed the original logo/character!
I, and my friends, saw the photograph for what it was... an interesting concept and one very well executed. I wonder how quickly the detractors of the photograph would have slinked of tails between thier legs had the poster of the photograph turned arround and said "actually it was a black mate of mine I photographed!"
There comes a time when the old symbols should be seen for what they were, a time of different values... one I hasten to add I dont agree with, rather people should be more aware of the current mistakes and incorect sterio-types... Holywood still portrays blacks as "the ones that get killed first in a horror movie" or as the side kick to the lead even in contempory films (ie not a piss take or hark back to older times) that is where the real disgust should lie!
Apart from publications specifically aimed at non-caucasuns... just look at the percentage of black or other non-caucasun models of both sexes... something seriously wrong with that, but I dont see a ground swell against say vogue and other glossies and the like!
Just my 5p worth.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:56:18 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by Rooster:
painting a white face balck is certainly offensive in the US... |
Why? Is there a reason for it or it just is, just like that? Where I live you can paint yourself in any color and nobody would care about it. |
well there were slaves here from africa & there used to be shows & stuff (weak on the actually history so sorry) where white cats used to paint there faces black to pretend to be black people. These days stuff like that is really offensive. |
Ok I start to get the picture from what you and what Kavey quoted, but I kinda see that as a reverse racism. I don't know if I can explain it clearly, I understant that's something really bad that happened in the past around 1800's if I get it right, but today shouldn't that be put all behind and live our lifes as if it never happened? I mean if we go and suspect everyone who does something that might be racist but might most probably be not, a form of reverse racism? To me it is 100% obvious that the photographer not only didn't had that in mind but that it never crossed his mind. It is verry obvious that all the man whanted whas a few contrasts. |
This last comment shows a very dim understanding of racism in the US. While the minstral shows date back to the 1800 and early 1900s, slavery in the US dates back to the 17th century. Racism is still prevelant. Keep in mind the Civil Rights movement took place as recently as the 1960's. People of color still face a lot of disadvantages in the US. I visited northern Georgia in 1998 and was shocked when a very young woman working in a gift shop tried to explain to my husband and I how the slaves really didn't have it as bad as everyone makes out. This is not an isolated case of racism. Racism is thriving in the U.S. Just do an internet search with the words white power or white supremacy if you don't believe this.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 06:56:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Ok I start to get the picture from what you and what Kavey quoted, but I kinda see that as a reverse racism. I don't know if I can explain it clearly, I understant that's something really bad that happened in the past around 1800's if I get it right, but today shouldn't that be put all behind and live our lifes as if it never happened? I mean if we go and suspect everyone who does something that might be racist but might most probably be not, a form of reverse racism? To me it is 100% obvious that the photographer not only didn't had that in mind but that it never crossed his mind. It is verry obvious that all the man whanted whas a few contrasts. |
LOLOL! ROFLMAOPIMP! You're not from here are you? In the USA you have to be politically Correct at all times, God forbid you offend someone or hurt their feelings!
Seriously though (the above was said with tongue in cheek) sadly you have to be so careful here in the US about certain things so you don't offend others. What may be totally acceptable in Japan might be totally offensive here and vice versa! :)
Deannda
Remember the period where all the books came out telling you to be politically correct? OY! |
I am verry far from US, but where I live there are 2 types of doing things, intentionate, with the intention to offend, and by mistake not knowing and not even imagining that what you do can offend someone. Because at the end we are so many people on the world with so manny whounds from past, and ways of thinking that I think maybe if you want to be "polliticaly correct" it's best if you never do anything.
For example where I live we have a children story about a "omu negru" (the black man) wich is a story like any other nothing racist or offensive in it, (we never had that thoward black people), my point is that as kids we often used to play with painting our facess in black to become "omu negru". You can't suspect little children of being racists can't you? We also had little girls dressing verry similar to KKK in an attempt to become pricesses, but we never had KKK here. I think all these things varies from one culture to another and I think you can't call someone offensive without knowing for sure that that's what he indended to be. Because if you do so you are the offensive one. To me atleast it's offensive to call someone guilty of something without making sure first that he does what you think he does. Can't this also be called "politicaly correct" In my world it does. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:02:38 PM · #29 |
check out Spike Lee's movie Bedazzled to get some ideas about why blackface has a negative history
(edited for typo)
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 19:03:38.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:05:39 PM · #30 |
...not to step in out of line, but I think the movie is called "Bamboozled." I could be wrong...it wouldn't be the first time!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:07:13 PM · #31 |
Sorry - I always make that mistake...probably because it is an unsettling movie with great dancing and I am getting senile!!
Message edited by author 2004-07-12 19:11:29.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:09:53 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by Rooster:
painting a white face balck is certainly offensive in the US. |
And yet painting a black face white as in the recent US movie 'White chicks' is perfectly fine. I understand that racism still exists even to this day, which is a shame, but people need to stop seeing color as the first thing they notice about someone. I think there are a lot of 'isms' that are projected onto situations, including sexism, ageism, and all the others. I'm not saying that it never exists, but I'm sure it doesnt happen as often as a lot of people would like. My interpretation of the image that he used the black paint to isolate and enhance the purple. I doubt it would have received the same score had it been a 'normal' person with a purple tongue. |
Actually, I saw the promo, about 15 seconds of it the other day and thought, "Oh My GOD, how utterly STUPID is that?" And made up my mind right then I wouldn't be seeing that one, renting that one or having anything else to do with it.
I personally find the shot fine except for the teeth, they are spooky to me!
Deannda
Can't stand blantent stupidity, even from myself |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:15:29 PM · #33 |
Yeah, Bamboozled.
Anyway, I personally didn't find the photo offensive as I could see where the photo is coming from, but, I can completely understand how it can be offensive. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:17:06 PM · #34 |
| Whilst I do not live in the US I do understand the issues that are still rampant in the US - however, Art is Art and its success is about how it makes people feel - no matter how controversial that Art is. By the looks of all this discussion, I think this photo has been very successful in promoting the work of the photographer as it has people talking about it. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:19:00 PM · #35 |
I was one of the 10 votes. I found the photo unique and creative but it didn't strike me as "blackface" which would have been very offensive to me. I enjoy the "out of the box" photos most and this certainly is.
On the other hand, I really don't like the doll hanging in the tree photo. My first impression when I see that is that it is representative of a child hanging in the tree and that is disturbing... and makes me sad :(
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:22:01 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by piercedJon:
I didnt find the shot offencive, firstly because I hadnt realised it was "black face," the same shot could have been created with a genuine black guy! While the face was "very black," I guess some people dont realise that black skin does indeed come in a variatly of colours from the west indian "brown" to the south african "black" although blacks of all hues, at least in the UK, do much prefer to be called black and are proud of that term, finding "coloured" a more offencive term. |
This is one of the very reasons that the blackfaced minstrals are offensive. Perhaps being from the UK, you are not familiar with the history of minstral shows in which white performers would wear coal black face paint and huge exaggerated white lips and eyes. This purple photo bears an unfortunate resemblance to that makeup. Here's a quote from an article on about.com:
The popularity of blackface minstrel performance was partly due to the emergence of a class system. Minstrel entertainment was able to provide a common thread for the lower, middle, and upper class. All whites could feel superior and unified while at the same time stereotyping African Americans.
Originally posted by piercedJon:
Even had I known that the subject had blacked up, I still would not have found it offencive, and neither would the majority of my friends... Some of which, if I have to actually make a distinction, are black...
Perhaps some of the reason for some finding it offencive is a USA cultural thing... although that said, it was not that long ago that robinsons jam finally removed the original logo/character! |
It is a cultural thing that has already been explained by a few different people with links.
Originally posted by piercedJon:
There comes a time when the old symbols should be seen for what they were, a time of different values... one I hasten to add I dont agree with, rather people should be more aware of the current mistakes and incorect sterio-types... Holywood still portrays blacks as "the ones that get killed first in a horror movie" or as the side kick to the lead even in contempory films (ie not a piss take or hark back to older times) that is where the real disgust should lie!
|
I agree with this. It's funny you mention the black guy dying because I just watched Bubba Hotep which co-starred Ossie Davis. I predicted he would die by the end because he was the black guy. Sorry if I'm spoiling this for anyone but....he did.
I think one has to be careful before judging someone's reaction to an offensive stereotype when you aren't familiar with the culture and history of a race. Black culture and experience in the UK has got to be vastly different then from the US. Your experiences of racism is bound to be different than those of a black man's (no matter how light-skinned he may be) in the US. In the US, racists do not distinguish light skinned people of color from dark skinned people of color. I say people of color to include all non-Caucasion people. It may come as a surprise to some folks but in America as recent as the late 19th century (and perhaps persisting into the 20th--I can't recall) Armenians were considered non-white and therefore could not share the same rights as whites. This is just to give you an idea of how broad the range of racism in America is. And no one has had it worse than African-Americans (some might argue American Indians have had it just as bad but under different circumstances).
If a person has not lived in the US (or if he/she does but is of Western European extraction) they really have no right to be outraged at someone elses offense. Kevin may have been ignorant of the history of blackface and innocent of any racist motivations but that does not diminish the strong emotional impact the image had on the people who were offended by it.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:25:36 PM · #37 |
I never thought this picture would be so contraversial. It seems like the ignorance of the people of yesteryear may have cost me a ribbon. :( I live near Toronto, Canada. I hear it is the most etnically diverse city in the world but I don't hear too much about racism. I think it is horrible that racism still exists anywhere in the world. Why can't we all just get along.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:32:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Racism is thriving in the U.S. Just do an internet search with the words white power or white supremacy if you don't believe this. |
A Google on "white power" OR "white supremacy" = 173,000 hits
A Google on "black power" OR "black supremacy" = 171,000 hits
You're right, racism is thriving (and in my opinion always will). But it is not limited to a single race. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:36:40 PM · #39 |
I didn't find it offensive, but for some reason I did find it disturbing. Don't really know why.
June
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:37:11 PM · #40 |
Great photo Kevin.
Enough said.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:38:01 PM · #41 |
Oh Good Lord! I sometimes think that people go looking for something to get their panties in a wad.
This is not a photo of a person of color - it's not a photo trying to look like a person of color - it's not a photo making fun of a person of color - it's a photo of some guy who thought it might be cool try something different.
The photo was well done albeit a little frightening [hence my comment].
If you are looking for a reason to take offense, read the news. If humans treated others as HUMANS for crying out loud, we'd wouldn't have an issue with racism in the first place. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:44:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bassie:
I never thought this picture would be so contraversial. It seems like the ignorance of the people of yesteryear may have cost me a ribbon. :( I live near Toronto, Canada. I hear it is the most etnically diverse city in the world but I don't hear too much about racism. I think it is horrible that racism still exists anywhere in the world. Why can't we all just get along. |
I don't know if it cost you a ribbon. You got a lot more positive than negative comments. I personally only gave the photo a 5. Although I got over my initial reaction, figuring you couldn't have known what you were doing, I still thought it was creepy. I have a strong aversion to seeing people painted like this that dates back to childhood and the movie Goldfinger. You still placed 6th so in the end, it worked out pretty good for you.
What needs to be understood is that although the minstral image is an old stereotype that many whites and non-Americans may be unfamiliar with, it is just one in a long line of negative black stereotypes. Black performers eventually made the minstral shows their own. But that stereotype was merely replaced by other, more modern stereotypes. If there were no racism in the country and no persistant stereotypes then I could see why people would say, 'move on'. Unfortunately, that is not the case. When you dismiss blackface stereotypes as the 'ignorance of yesteryear' you miss sight of the point that negative stereotypes persist to this day in the US. I don't think anyone in this forum is arguing with the notion that we should all just get along. Talk is cheap. One way to do that is to walk a mile in another's shoes and empathize with why your photo offended some people instead of whining about not winning a fake ribbon. Perhaps if you actually see an old photo or illustration of a white person in blackface you will understand a bit more what the big deal is.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:49:25 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Yep, just ask Ted Dansen (Sam from CHEERS) when he was dating Whoopie Godlberg and showed up at an event with is face painted black.
Deannda
I do believe she dropped him shortly after that |
I just thought I should state for the record that, yes, Ted Dansen did get a lot of flak for wearing blackface, but that was actually Whoopi's idea and she defended him vigorously. Their breakup had nothing to do with it.
Backs away slowly, trying not to get caught in the maelstrom...
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:56:27 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Oh Good Lord! I sometimes think that people go looking for something to get their panties in a wad.
This is not a photo of a person of color - it's not a photo trying to look like a person of color - it's not a photo making fun of a person of color - it's a photo of some guy who thought it might be cool try something different.
The photo was well done albeit a little frightening [hence my comment].
If you are looking for a reason to take offense, read the news. If humans treated others as HUMANS for crying out loud, we'd wouldn't have an issue with racism in the first place. |
One way of treating people humanely is to attempt to understand their culture and their feelings. There is a very legitimate reason for some people to be offended by this photo, whether Kevin intended it or not. The gracious thing would have been for him to apologize. Instead, he made a self-serving comment about losing out on a ribbon. What is more important? A stupid photo contest or someone's legitimate strong emotional response to a recognized stereotype? It has already been explained in detail why this image has such strong negative connotations for black Americans. Dismissing those feelings in favor of patting someone on the back for a photo is shameful and wrong. While I sympathise with the awkwardness of Kevin's situation, I'm appalled that so many people are willing to accuse the offended parties as 'having their panties in a bunch'. This challenge will come and go and Kevin will move on and make more pictures.
In the meantime, racism lives on and people of color deal with it on a daily basis.
Your comment about treating other humans as humans sounds like the kind of cheap talk used by people who are uncomfortable dealing with strong issues. Guess what? Racism is news. Every day. Ignoring this kind of discussion or dismissing it is not exactly paving the way toward a better world. You are making a photo contest more important than an individual's feelings.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 07:59:47 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Racism is thriving in the U.S. Just do an internet search with the words white power or white supremacy if you don't believe this. |
A Google on "white power" OR "white supremacy" = 173,000 hits
A Google on "black power" OR "black supremacy" = 171,000 hits
You're right, racism is thriving (and in my opinion always will). But it is not limited to a single race. |
I didn't imply that it was. In fact, I mentioned my own dealings with racism as a child in the South. According to the Ku Klux Klan my dad who is half-white/half-Mexican is a 'mistake of nature'.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 08:06:11 PM · #46 |
I'm having a hard time with this notion that the photographer should be apologizing for anything. What if the intent of the photographer was to portray racism? Who is anyone to judge the merit of artist's intent?
The fact that so much discussion has arisen and that some were offended is a testament to the decency of the photo as a piece of art. This is all, of course, my opinion and subject to gross inaccuracy. :P |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 08:07:59 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
In the meantime, racism lives on and people of color deal with it on a daily basis.
|
People of color are not the only ones that deal with it all the time. I had white friends that used to get beat up all the time as kids because they were white in a black area. Then you have this movie White Chicks that is out now, I guess that is funny, but the other way around it would be the most racist movie out there. I also noticed that someone posted a comment in this thread and refered to the white people as white cats while saying black people in the same sentence. I guess white people aren't really people.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 08:08:52 PM · #48 |
Does this mean no more BLACK an WHITE photos because someone might just happen to see that there are connotations of racism in them?
I showed the photo to a "Black" friend of mine and he loved it. people should Stop trying to be goody 2 shoes and get on with life instead of trying to push a barrow about Black and White.
Personally I'm dissapointed, I thought that this site was about photography.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2004 08:10:07 PM · #49 |
| jeebus, i thought the picture was very well done. its not like the face was painted black and then shown stealing a purple TV or something like that. the black helped focus on the purple parts. oh wells. |
|
|
|
07/12/2004 08:10:33 PM · #50 |
This is a very thought provoking conversation.
As the white mother of two biracial children I've had to face the fact that racism is alive and well and living not only in the United States but we've seen it in our trips around the world. Sadly, much more so than I'd expected when we adopted our children. I've learned how much more sensitive we need to be as humans to those around us.
Kevin, I gave your photo and 8 because of the photographic quality and effort that you put into doing it. But at the same time I admit that when the picture came up on my screen I took a second look.
|
|
