
After hitting the newsstands, the cover image (see right) began to stir up concerns that it perpetuated racial stereotypes. The image captures James who strikes what some see as a “gorilla-like pose,” barring his teeth, with one massive hand dribbling a ball and the other lightly wrapped around Bundchen’s tiny waist. LeBron is dressed in his basketball gear, with his muscles flexing and tattoos showing. Gisele, on the other hand, is wearing a gorgeous slim-fitting silk green dress, and smiling. She looks like she is on her way to a fashionable event while James seems to be en route to a “pickup game for serial killers.” It is an image some have likened to “King King and Fay Wray.” One Philadelphia news analyst, Tamara Walker, says the photograph “conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man.” Another magazine analyst, Samir Husni also believes the photo was deliberately racist stating that it “screams King Kong” (see below left).
Yet, the point of the cover shot was to show the contrast between brawn and beauty, masculinity and femininity, strength and grace. These themes paralleled the overarching motifs that the April 2008 issue aimed to embody—aligning supermodels of super beauty with extraordinary athletes. But some speculate that Vogue’s quest to highlight these differences between superstar athletes and superstar models only successfully reinforced the animalistic stereotypes frequently associated with black athletes.
In a column at ESPN.com, Jemele Hill called the cover “memorable for all the wrong reasons.” Ultimately, Hill questioned LeBron’s responsibility to his image, which she emphasizes that it "clearly means a lot to him.” Hill also claimed that white athletes are generally portrayed smiling or laughing while black sports figures are given a “beastly sort of vibe.” However, had a white sportsman been in LeBron’s place would there have been a difference in the treatment of the photograph? Unfortunately, this we will never know. But it is important to weigh the possibility of a contrast situation. Nevertheless, Hill argues that the aggressive and

In reaction to the reports accusing Vogue of racial insensitivity, Vogue spokesman Patrick O’Connell said the magazine “sought to celebrate two superstars at the top of their game” for the magazine’s annual issue devoted to size and shape. “We think LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen look beautiful together and we are honored to have them on the cover.” When LeBron was asked about the controversial photograph, he told a Cleveland newspaper that he was pleased with the cover and even said he was “just showing some emotion.” LeBron added, “Everything my name is on is going to be criticized in a good way or in a bad way,” James told the paper. “Who cares what anyone says?”
Many say the image shows James’ “game face”—nothing more. They also note that Bundchen hardly looks frightened—which would negate any claims that James looks barbaric or predatory over the dainty model. “James is a huge, black beautiful masculine statue and Gisele is a feminine, sexy gorgeous doll,” said Christa Thomas, a black account manager in Los Angeles. “I didn’t see any kind of racist undertone to it,” she said, “I still don’t. I think there is such a hypersensitivity to race still in this country.”
The photograph is truly a work of art and the criticism surrounding it is in fact a perfect example of America’s aversion toward anything that might have a racist undertone in the media. Had a white man, say NFL player Tom Brady, been in LeBron’s place I think the image would have received little if any attention in the media. Furthermore, like the rest of the Olympic athletes featured in the issue, LeBron is dressed in his sportswear. When it comes down to it, the photo shows both LeBron and Gisele acting as if they are in their natural work environments—where LeBron poses with his “game face” and Gisele smiles wildly with her stunningly picturesque poise. Ultimately, I feel the cover is a beautiful photograph that captures the juxtaposition of beauty and strength in James and Bundchen’s celestial bodies.
3 comments:
AAG,
I applaud you for your position on this unfortunate turn of events at Vogue. What should have been a momentous occasion in the history of the magazine was overshadowed by hypersensitivity. Many may see your stance on this as biased, but as you show in your post that is not the case. The cover had nothing to do with racial stereotypes. The analysis of the cover was far overreaching. At this time in our history I would have expected that America would rise above throwing the race card yet again. It is these types of responses to art, to sensationalize something out of nothing, that keeps perpetuating stereotypes. As you pointed out, had a white athlete been on the cover the response would have been different, like something out of a high school yearbook.
Your research was astounding, taking several resources that dealt with the same response. It is as if they all jumped onto the bandwagon out of fear from taking a different stance on the matter as I have yet to find a positive response on the cover. The visuals are appropriate, if not perfect. Just looking at the two pictures alone sets up the argument, one which at first sets up the argument itself. Great job on your post. I hope someday we can all look past the color of one's skin and admire the beauty and complexities of this kind of art, rather than limit ourselves to standardized practices.
I think that this is a very well chosen topic- it not only fits within the overall theme of your blog, it is also a very good example of a major contemporary American social issue. (That being media such as magazines and televisions shaping overall popular culture, social beliefs and even the economy). In addition to the well chosen topic, I enjoyed your post because of the eloquence and passion you portray within your writing style.
You diligently quoted very authoritative resources who, I think, had legitimate opinions even if they did seem to be a little 'hypersensitive.' I fully agree with you that the photograph is beautiful and is meant to show each of the subjects in their ultimate professional element. (That LeBron's face showed a striking resemblance to King Kong illustrations was a bit unfortunate). What surprised me about all of the hoop-la over what this photo 'really' portrayed was that no one mentioned anything about perpetuating extreme social gender roles or perfect bodies. (I mean, if were going to get knit-picky over hidden messages then I'm sure we could come up with a few more critiques). If LeBron is representing the media's racial stereotype of the black athlete, then Is not the supermodel just as guilty as LeBron for portraying the stereotype of the perfect woman?
From reading your post and reviewing your hyperlinks, I found that I agreed with your arguement. This cover was meant to be an artistic idealization and not a social commentary. However, there is something to be said about the fact that people could not view this cover for what it was meant to be. Perhaps these reactions are symptoms of a larger disease. Maybe its just that everyone has been too sensitized to the usual mundane and thoughtless uses of this media.
In the end though, the loftiest goal a work of art can hope to achieve is to make people think and react. Whatever this cover does say, it certainly made people think and talk.
fuck you the picture had racist undertones you cunt - you all are closeted racist bastards - burn in hell
Post a Comment