by Carmen Van Kerckhove
So folks, what do you think of the covers from Vanity Fair’s special Africa issue, guest-edited by Bono?
Above is just one of the 20 different covers shot by Annie Liebowitz. You can check out the rest at vanityfair.com. (Hat tip Stereohyped)
In terms of the one above, I think it should have been the other way around….
I think it’s good to see Angelou on the cover of something that isn’t Oprah Mag (when Oprah isn’t on the cover). Also it’s funny that Bishop Tutu has his eyes closed while Bush faces him. Funny haha.
Dang, Oprah’s on a cover, too!
That is the first time I have ever, everevereverever, seen Alicia Keys not wear her hair in rows.
Not that I blame her. I used to wear my hair in rows all the time in high school for the express purpose of silencing annoying questions about my race.
I’m real sysed about Jay-Z being on the cover. A friend of mine saw him perform in Tanzania last year.
ITA. Furthermore, What message is the picture really trying to say? The Big Picture? It seems to suggest yet again that WHITE is the only hope. I haven’t seen the other pictures (which I hope are different), but this one seems to send the aforementioned message.
The very fact that Bush and Condoleeza are featured strike me as …odd… to say the least…mainly because they haven’t exactly been groundbreaking in their Africa-R-Us policies… I want to read the entire issue and then render a solid opinion… 
I like ‘em just fine. I’m glad the Angelou-Madonna one wasn’t the only.
Another instance where Black people’s words must be validated by white people. In this case, white celebrities.
It seems the white people appearing on these covers are more likely to be celebrities, whereas the black people are more likely to have actually done something important.
The picture really bugs me the longer I look at it.
Here’s why..
*Ms. Angelou is looking down, her whole face is down
*Madonna has her nose up in the air
*Madonna has a death grip on Ms. Angelou’s arm
*Madonna seeming to “whisper” something in Ms. Angelou’s ear (or smelling her)
*Madonna’s position above and around Ms. Angelou reeks of a white person holding captive a black person
Ugh. It really bothers me and I truly wish it they would have switched places.
Dawnz, I see what you’re saying…the fact that Madonna is holding Ms. Angelou is making the scenario even worse…
I looked at the whole series and I thought it was cool to see the slideshow, where one person links one cover to the next cover. Like, Jay-Z is on the cover with Alicia Keys, then Alicia Keys is on the cover with Iman, then Iman is on the cover with someone else, etc., etc. And it makes them look like they are playing a game of telephone, where they are whispering a message, spreading it from one person to the next through the group. I like the covers better as a set in the larger context rather than that one isolated by itself. The group of covers doesn’t seem to convey such unintended racial/power messages as that one Madonna/Maya image does to some viewers as stated in previous comments.
Africa is a continent of self-governing nations. Why are there no more African leaders (aside from Tutu and not actors or models) on the covers, like environmentalist and Nobel Prize laureate Wangari Maathai or Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman president of Liberia? Don’t they represent Africa more than Alicia Keys and Chris Rock? Neocolonialism with a red backdrop.
I saw the whole series of covers, and it’s just like Stefanie said: It’s supposed to be about spreading the message. I like the concept. Don’t know how well it was done.
In the context of the entire picture, I don’t see the white power play. I think it says something about celebrities doing something useful with their celebrity, all of us doing something useful wherever we can.
Looking at the individual covers… All of them were shot individually and then photoshopped together, so no one actually interacted. It’s a shame, too. Some of the covers ended up looking a little sexual for that reason.
But the covers with Iman? STUNNING!
Here is the link to the Vanity Fair comments on their covers, characterizing it as a “chain letter”: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/onthecover_slideshow200707
Sort of a cool concept, and I am reserving judment until I actually read/see the issue, but the whole thing feels a little uncomfortable to me, in the same way the “Red” campaign does. I am glad for publicity and exposure it could bring (and of course the aid), but it all feels a bit exploitative and trendy to me. I am with Carla that this would probably feel a bit more credible if there were more “real” African leaders featured. Then again, it is Vanity Fair.
I agree with carla #12–they could only muster up three African folks. There are many countries and cultures in Africa why not have more actually African people.
Carla,
Good question. But remember, they need to sell copies. Americans, for the most part, need a spoonful of Hollywood honey to make the medicine go down.
why is bono’s name so huge? that is not necessary, in fact it is irritating.
Merq, Ogbeni mi, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
The magazine’s target audience are Americans and god knows there are perhaps an almost negligible number of people who would be able to tell Wangari Maathai and President Johnson-Sirleaf apart, despite what they have done/are doing.
I should also add that I would have a different set of problems if I saw Obasanjo and Mbeki on the cover, given some of their misguided policies… but that’s another story for another thread
I haven’t seen the actual issue, just the website. I understand that cover needs to have celebrities to sell. (I’m personally tired of Annie Liebowitz’s style). I’m disappointed they didn’t use any African photographers and only a handful of African writers. Representing and interpreting their own culture in an international forum like VF would make as great an impact as another “Buy Red” exhortation. I’m afraid it will be another patronizing snore like the green issues always are.
I’m dubious about the cover, too, but I certainly have a problem with the content of the article on Madonna, entitled “Raising Malawi.” It’s here:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/07/madonna200707
There’s not one word about the problematic issues and questions raised by her transnational adoption; she’s pure Great White Hope come to “raise up” the poor African masses, and to see inside the heads of poor African orphans.
It is sad that the champion of change in Africa has to have white faces to bring people awareness as if human suffering is not enough to rouse people from their seat and protest in outrage. It has to be legitimatize by white people.
@ Wendi
The very fact that Bush and Condoleeza are featured strike me as …odd… to say the least…mainly because they haven’t exactly been groundbreaking in their Africa-R-Us policies… I want to read the entire issue and then render a solid opinion… *chuckles* I think your opinion is ok …abstinence only, no abortion or we’ll cut your funding…which has already been cut as far as prevention. I could deal with Madonna, but when I got to these photos, all I could think of was “well, it IS Vanity Fair and they always ‘run the gamut’ when presenting these layouts!”
@ carla Africa is a continent of self-governing nations. Why are there no more African leaders (aside from Tutu and not actors or models) on the covers, like environmentalist and Nobel Prize laureate Wangari Maathai or Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman president of Liberia? Don’t they represent Africa more than Alicia Keys and Chris Rock? Neocolonialism with a red backdrop. AMEN! What would be more avant garde than profiling (in their signature stylish way) the people who really matter?????? I had a convo w/ a Liberian man the other day who was very enthusiastic about EJS. It would have been nice for Vanity Fair to introduce her to [some] American folks.
That said, I hope I can get my hands on the Iman (flawless) & Cheadle covers.
The Iman/Cheadle cover is STUNNING!
May be it will make up for the inescapable reek of colonialism I expect from the articles themselves.
When I saw this 1st one it just didn’t go over too well - I agree with “this justin” when he said it should have been reversed. The Oprah one with the Gates’ was a good one, as was the one with Alicia Keys and Iman (who looks so GORGEOUS by the way), and the one with Iman and Don Cheadle was a favorite too….
And a big old WTF to the “Great White Hope” “saving” Africa…I’ll just leave it at that
I haven’t read the issue, and I probably won’t. The idea of reading articles about Africa’s many facets in juxtaposition with advertisements for high price junk makes me queasy. My comments refer mostly to the covers, which are another visual depiction of the U.S. status quo. I feel that the idea here, as with ridiculously disappointing Red Campaign, the readers of this magazine have to be seduced by pretty pictures of well-known people in mostly artificial contexts (many of these people were photoshopped together, right?) in order to pay attention to social issues.
I resist the ongoing “white-rescuer, white license” metanarrative regarding Africa, illustrated in some of these pictures and in the choices of celebrity representatives. If the content of this Vanity Fair issue can do anything to change this unfortunately typical story, then it’s not a total publicity stunt.
African people are human beings, not a charity cases. And that’s real.
I also wish more of all this Africa stuff featured, well, AFRICANS. And why is Bono letting himself by the poster boy for Africa? Why not have an African writer at least co-guest edit?
And I also hate how we talk about “Africa” in a way we’d never talk about any other continent, as if we don’t recognize the dozens of individual countries with very distinct people, cultures, and languages.
Nothing substantial to say. Only to DnA, Alicia Keys has been wearing styles other than cornrows for at least a couple of years now. Actually it’s been a while since I’ve seen her in rows.
In a way it is good that attention is being placed upon the poverty, destitution and despair facing many in Africa. However, with such a celebrity backed effort seems to allude to Africa as being the new cause celebre. I don’t think anyone is going to address the real reasons behind much of the turmoil facing Africa, which often can be traced to multi-national corporations, exploitation, racism and greed. Let’s just hope that this movement goes a little deeper than just a few charitable displays and lip service.
The too Madonna ones were the only covers that really struck me negatively. Her other one is even more fucked up
These covers are just awkward…from the lighting to the positioning of the individuals….they are just weird! I don’ like them…..
I’m not trying to read that much into the photos, actually. I think it is important to acknowledge, though, who took the photos, and what a history she has of taking controversial & artistic photos. Perhaps the intention was the instigate the very conversation folks are having here on this blog.
Just a thought….
It seems to me that Madonna looks oversexed and turned on by Maya, more so than dominating her. Either way, disturbing. Iman is a goddess. Beautiful and sexy without being a sex object.
Seriously? Wow, Madonna just can’t ever catch a break, can she? (I think she has one of the most beautiful profiles.)
It is annoying that celebrities need to be trotted out to support human rights causes, but I’d rather they do that and raise some awareness and money, than use unknown socio-political figures and not raise any. This is Vanity Fair. VANITY FAIR. Level your expectations. Vanity Fair. Edited by Bono.
I’m not saying we should keep the bar low across the board, but the kind of discourse that I think most people commenting here would like to see will likely not happen in Vanity Fair. Because that’s not the business they’re in. They’re in the business of making magazines with celebrities on the covers. They’re not going to hire a whole new staff so their “Africa” issue can have more substance.
And Social Citizen - you may decide not to read much into the pictures, but artistic imagery isn’t just about taking things at face value. How can you value the history and context of the photographer but fail to consider the history and context of the images? If she does mean to instigate such a conversation, that would require some expectation that people will indeed read into the photos.
An artist cannot control all of the ways her work will be read, but to work without considering the symbolism and representational potential of your creations is irresponsible. Is that what Liebowitz is doing? I can’t say. But to “not read that much” into photos with images juxtaposed so intentionally is critically lazy, in my opinion.
Heh. If the white guys helps a poverty-stricken country, everybody sneers “oh, there’s the white man’s burden.” If he doesn’t, there’s another “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
I agree with Blanky.
But the thing that bothers me the most about these covers is the fact that some looked so photoshoped (i.e. Oprah and George Clooney) as if they fused to different images together.
Come on now.
Sewere,
Obasanjo, you say? Dude, don’t give me nightmares here!
Blanky,
I totally agree. There is a bit of a “damned if you do… don’t” thing going on in the world. But guess what… every race has that in one form or another.
Regarding Madonna:
Not a fan, and I agree the Maya Angelou shot does feel a little too “uplift the poor, the dark.” But I still think some of that is due to a certain distaste for Madonna/Jolie and the philanthropimps behind I Am African and RED campaigns.
I mean, I see there isn’t a single mention of the Chris Rock/Warren Buffett cover. To me, it reeks of a “don’t-touch-the-hair”-style violation of personal space, and I’m certain that if Madonna tugged at Maya Angelou’s ear in such a fashion, we’d be reading a whole lot about it in this section.
I’m not claiming moral superiority because this black-on-white impropriety rubbed little ol’ black me the wrong way. Rather, I think I most likely picked up on it because I just can’t stand Chris Rock.
Still, food for thought, no?
Vanity Fair’s website claims that “The 21 people who put their famous faces to work for this cover says it all” I think not! Oprah’s cover with the Gates is the most stunning in my opinion but really most of these people (not counting the obvious i.e Bono, the Gates, Desmond Tutu, Bush/Rice) will not go down in the history books as having a major impact in any single country in Africa. Vanity projects, adoptions, a benefit concert here and there yes, but really dealing with the issues? Brad Pitt, Madonna, Chris Rock, Jay Z? Give me a break! Carla and Keke couldn’t agree with you more. I will read the issue and perhaps we will all be proven wrong. I doubt it!
I don’t get why Westerners think giving money to Africa will “fix” the continent. Change will only be effected when leaders such as the “president” of Equatorial Guinea are ousted. I mean, really. Who pours money into a company run by embezzlers? Why do that with countries, ugh.
30 & 36 and others : In Liebowitz’s group portraits(and by many others in VF) the subjects are almost always photographed separately, then photoshopped together. From a technical stand point, that’s why the lighting and shadows are usually off and the edges too sharp. From an aesthetic and emotional stand point they miss making any connection between the subjects and with the viewer. Although their styles are vastly different Liebowitz and David LaChappelle create images through almost the same process.
Therefore I would read anything into the interactions between the subjects on the covers, they probably didn’t know who they would be positioned with. I assume some of them demanded not with Bush or Rice. Given Madonna’s history, see the Sex Book, she may have thought she would be in a 3-way with Iman and Obama when she made that expression.
(I find Liebowitz creates the most smug, vapid, and deferential of celebrity portraits. As a viewer, I’m bored, but if I was a celebrity I would let her shoot me, they always look great.)
I meant to write “Therefore I would NOT read anything into the interactions between the subjects on the covers”
and after re-reading maybe I should have written “Therefore I COULD read anything into the interactions between the subjects on the covers”
It’s not so much the desire to help or raise awareness that annoys me, it’s the often smug, arrogant attitudes of the likes of Bono. He’s been all about Africa for, what, five years now? Yet he seems to feel perfectly comfortable exhorting all of us to help out now b/c Africa is the most important issue facing humanity.
It may be - but I don’t need Bono telling me that. I don’t need Alicia Keys telling me that, either. Problems in Africa didn’t just start yesterday. Blast away at me for saying this, but…it seems taht with white liberals, every cause begins and ends with them.
There are many people who have been “all about AFrica” for plenty of years, decades…whose voices weren’t heard by American celebrities…now that Bono’s come along, however, let’s all listen!
In his guest editor letter, Bono says something to the effect of, “And yeah, we’re supporting the corporations that are helping us out, like Emporio Armani, etc., and hope that THEY do profit from this - we’re being real.” That’s great, but don’t companies like that often utilize sweatshop labor in order to make a profit?
Oh wait - Asian sweatshops isn’t trendy right now. Forgive me.
naaz, i totally agree! i thought that exactly when the (RED) campaign came out. I mean wasn’t just a few years ago (ahem cough cough the present cough) that gap was using sweatshop labor and getting called on the carpet for it? these campaigns involve giving with one hand and taking with the other. it doesn’t make any sense.
Keke, I’m totally with you with the “multi-national corporations, exploitation, racism and greed” as reasons for much of the turmoil in Africa, which Vanity Fair will most likely not touch. I was especially apalled by the Bush/Rice cover. Like gatamala and Wendi say, what have they done for Africa but made their intentions of corporate, military, and even ideological (i.e. abstinence) dominance over Africa clear. It’s pretty obvious that Vanity Fair will never talk about Pentagon’s proposed new U.S. Africa Command, which will be used to train militaries in West Africa’s oil triangle so they can protect the resource on behalf of America, which I incidentally blogged about back in February. It’s pretty clear that there will be no mention of the multi-national (many U.S.-based) oil and mining companies funding violence and exploiting the continent’s resources. They will probably focus on orphans, adoption, poverty, AIDS - the usual suspects. 
trite, tiresome. but that’s what I expect from Vanity Fair.
I am shocked that there is so much criticism over this. When are people going to see past black and white? These celebreties have done more for this cause than most people appointed and paid to do so by governments in the nations most affected… the fact Vanity Fair is recognizing them, Black, White, Brown, Beige or other shouldn’t matter to anyone… my hat is off to all of them featured.
I’ve read the entire Africa issue from cover to cover and I have to say that its by far the best set of articles that have been published in quite a while dealing with the various issues that plague Africa. Until the mention on racialicious.com I have never read an issue of Vanity Fair… major kudos to Bono for being at the helm of responsible journalism.
I like the idea of the 20 different covers but I’m more than willing to bet newsstand owners probably have to fight tooth and nail to get rid of the cover with Condi and Dubya…. gee I wonder why
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of New Demographic, an anti-racism training company. She hosts the podcast Addicted to Race and blogs at Racialicious, Anti-Racist Parent, and Race in the Workplace.
Racialicious! is a production of New Demographic.
© 2004-2007 New Demographic. All rights reserved.
blog.txt theme by Scott
Making Africans Human, One Video at a Time at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 27 Sep 2007 at 10:00 am
[…] Way I’m Always Trying to Get You Off (Me & You)” does a shockingly good job of what Bono and the Vanity Fair crew seem to have a few problems getting right: humanizing black […]