Forcing the look
by Jen Chau
This ad campaign for international telecommunications company, Telefonica, seems to try to cash in on the mixed look. A little forced if you ask me.
Fascination with “mixed looks” is definitely something I am over. 
But it carries on. Can’t wait until everyone catches up and people realize that there are lots of people who look like this out there. There is something creepy about headshots like this. Are we supposed to be mystified by the way they look? (stare and wonder, “how did they get to be like this?”) There’s almost something anthropological about them. I mean, who needs to study anyone’s face like this?
You may have heard me complain about headshots of mixed people in the past. Yes, I think visibility is important, and I agree that there are still a lot of folks out there who objectify and get so curious because they aren’t yet comfortable with the idea that mixed people exist…. but I am still not convinced that face-front headshots is the way to do it. Aren’t we just encouraging objectification instead of moving towards a more realistic, complex understanding?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
HighJive wrote:
the imagery is reminiscent of tibor kalman’s work that twisted the racial identities of famous figures. here’s a link for the only online example i could find via google search.
http://amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0823011461
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 8:08 am ¶
julie the fish wrote:
these photos are reminiscent of kip fulbeck’s exhibition. i wrote a comment on it in another forum, but here again are my thoughts on such “work” as his and that above me:
i haven’t been to the exhibition, but i’ve seen the promotions for it in little tokyo. simply, i’m so turned off that i do not even want to fully view fulbeck’s pompous ass work.
so before anyone gets pharisaic and whiny and calls me unjustified, lemme say that you’re a nerd alert, calmete, and i comment just from the sneakpeaks alone.
anyway.
kip fulbeck deliberately poses his “subjects” in a manner that suggests nudity – is this to get to the raw core of us real, true, tragic hapas? or is it rather to erotically appeal to a prurient, mainstream audience?
one can claim that with fulbeck’s exhibition comes subsequent empowerment for mixed race people – i.e. moving away from the periphery of the social dialect and into the spotlight – but under this transparent cloak of ethnic pride comes this spectacle of exotification; instead of a rounded, complex dialogue concerning history, ethnicity, and culture between people arising, silent, 2-dimensional displays of objects emerge: cuz damnit, we really are flat, naked, and really fucking invested in getting you invested into gazing and picking at us.
that’s not only stupid, it’s insulting.
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 9:31 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
People also need to get a clue that there are world populations and individuals who look “mixed” even when both parents are of the same ethnic group. It’s genetics, it happens, it’s not that weird.
From the pictures on the site, the only one that feels, I guess, natural to me is the first one posted here and at the site. Maybe that’s just my POV limited by personal exposure. With the other ones, I find myself going “What are the genetic odds?”
Then again, I love genetics – don’t mind me
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 2:53 pm ¶
JFB wrote:
As someone who’s followed you from eurasiannation to mixedmediawatch, and as someone who considers himself to be part of the mixed identity awareness movement, I feel betrayed. Honestly, I hate the new name. I can’t help but think that the name change has come about from the increase in your popularity and your desire to further broaden your appeal. Please prove me wrong. It’s disappointing because the online mixed community isn’t very large and every loss is a big one. Why is it a loss? Because even if you are sincere when you say the content will not change, people interested in mixed identity are much less likely to find the site with the ridiculous new name. Will you not at least leave mixedmediawatch in tact like you did with eurasiannation? Or are you willing to abandon this address completely, erasing all evidence of its success in connecting with mixed people? Please don’t completely sell out and keep mixedmediawatch online!
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 7:55 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
JFB:
I trust Jen and Carmen to do the right thing, and I do see that MMW has branched out beyond its initial scope. Maybe the new name will grow on you!
In the meantime, scroll down to the first post of the new site, and you’ll see that the MMW site is NOT offline, but is intact, old comments and all… Hopefully, new readers will see MMW and follow over to here.
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 8:10 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Hi JFB, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m a bit confused though. What is your main objection – just the name change? Or the broadening of content beyond only mixed-related issues? And maybe I’m misreading you here, but are you saying that talking about broader issues of race is “selling out?”
Posted 29 Sep 2006 at 7:20 am ¶
S wrote:
I had a feeling that some bi and multiracial people would feel like JFB. For some, the change almost leads them to think that it will be taken over by mono issues and the bi and mutliracial issuses my become diluted. Understandable, however, with the creators of the blog being of mixed race and a firm history of discussing “mixed” issues, I can’t see that happening.
Posted 29 Sep 2006 at 8:54 am ¶
Admin wrote:
HighJive- interesting, I am going to have to check that out… thanks for the link!
Regarding the disappointment of switching from MMW to Racialicious. While I do understand the concern, I think that S and Lyonside are right on. If you know us, you know that there’s no way that we would or COULD forget about mixed issues. In a way, we will be doing more service to the mixed community by bringing issues to light, and by placing them within/alongside any other discussion of race. To me, the goal is to have mixed identity as part of the discussion whenever we talk about ethnic identity…to have interracial couples recognized and respected as we talk about relationships and families, in general.
Visbility is always going to be important, and we will continue to do that work…but to continue to have a separate discussion without bringing other issues onto our radar is limiting.
You will see that we had been doing this for a while on MMW anyway! We just wanted the new name to reflect what we were already doing.
And JFB, of course, if you feel that there are stories that we should definitely be covering, don’t forget to hit us up!
Thanks all for this great discussion — as always.
~JC
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 6:25 am ¶
Asada wrote:
TO MODS – My mistake, I got nervous that my point would not be published and totally forgot to look at the time I wrote it. It was not very PC either, which made me more nervous. Sorry about that.
Posted 06 Oct 2008 at 1:46 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
about the car,
so is he saying that , he has a big car and he wants to get a smaller fuel efficient one so as not to look like he is a gangster and paying the big care off with street money?
I read that thing over twice but my slang is off and I dont quite get what he’s saying.
Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
pictures one and two I remember seeing everywhere. But picture three I cant even think of it!
Posted 16 Oct 2008 at 4:44 pm ¶