by Carmen Van Kerckhove
American Apparel is really proud of this editorial credit in the latest issue of i-D magazine. So proud that they’ve featured it on their web site. Blackface is so chic nowadays!
…are you sure she is not actually black? how do we know this is blackface?
and on a side note, what’s the deal with the skeevy line on her breasts? i am really tired of AA pimping out its models…
I think she is actually black. But I’m sure the choice of lip color was deliberate to mimic the blackface images we’re all so familiar with.
>what’s the deal with the skeevy line on her breasts?
Oh Wendi, why won’t you embrace your delicious chocolateness like AA and i-D want you to?? 
So, this is where I am confused… I understand how the ad is racist, from the imperialist imagery… but how does this become “black face?”
My understandings of black face are of taking a non-black person and painting them to fit the image. Is the model not black?
or is it black face b/c she is posing as a woman affected by imperialism? which in that case, how many fashion spreads are guilty?
as i wrote on the AA comments, the sexism and exoticism consistently featured in their ads is why i won’t ever shop there…
I’ve always hated AA…
And even though it isn’t “true” blackface, I still think it counts: 1) The dark make-up and the neon pink lipstick. 2) The “mammy” headwrap. 3) The “jezebel” cleavage.
Also, I’m kinda disturbed by the fact that so much cleavage is being shown next to the “American Apparel is under 10 years of age…” line.
Then again, like I said, I’ve always hated AA.
the last issue of clamor had a really good expose of american apparel (http://www.clamormagazine.org/issues/38/ scroll down to the ’special features’ section), pretty comprehensively covering why not to shop there.
Blackface, as Carmen uses the word here, refers to a stylized form of make-up and entertainment which origininated with Vaudeville comedy acts in which white folks put on black make-up on everything but the area around their mouth and acted like brainless bumbling idiots for white audiences. Black actors ended up putting on blackface as well, sometimes painting their faces a darker shade of black and applying pink or white lipstick on an area wider than their actual lips for effect, and marketing themselves as “the real thing”, making it even more okay for whites to laugh at the imagined backwardness and stupidity of blacks. So as I see it, whether it’s blacks or whites doing the actual dead, blackface as a cultural phenomenon certainly has deeply racist roots.
[ above: dead = deed ]
Hmmm. Even if this model is actually a black woman, I feel like black people in blacker face still adds up to blackface. Could just be me, though. Wendi: I’m with you, girl. The booby line is skeevy to the nth. Yick.
Ditto to Kai and Fiqah.
that line is still bothering me so much
it makes it look like she is for sale
and they could have used a cooler, more subtle color to match the clothes without going the bright pink route…i mean a toned down orange-red would have matched her shirt…
i think her skin tone is beautiful, but one thing’s for sure…she will NOT be able to find any makeup (foundation, concealer,powder, or tinted moisturizer) at clinique… lol
btw, that LOL is more like an “oh my god, when will they wake up, where does she find her makeup” kinda lol…not a haha, she can’t buy makeup at clinique lol
Her disappointment is apparent in her facial expression. A bit sad and defeated. It makes me sad too.
Actually, back in the days of blackface “entertainment”, it was not at all unusual for a Black actor to be put in blackface.
Apparently, American Apparel is continuing that long sordid tradition.
Of course, American Apparel is a very slimy company to begin with - many of their ads are borderline child porno, with anorexic appearing underaged-looking models (who, I’m quite sure, are actually over 18 - for purely legal reasons, of course) posed in oversexualized positions.
Since sexism and rape culture have gotten American Apparel so far, they decided to give good old White supremacy a shot!!!
Dov wants to be Benetton so badly he can’t stand it. Mayeb his only redeeming quality is that the clothes are made in the US? Not sure that even saves him. While the model’s not white playing someone black, they’re totally going for the blackface spoof here.
i’m not sure this model was made any darker than she actually really is. i’ve seen her before, and i was scouring the model sites to try to find images of her…
i don’t think this counts as blackface, either, but the neon lips are a bit jarring, if anything.
perhaps this is not so much racist as it is racial. 
(i love that saying)
i like the AA ads; reminds me of terry richardson and the old calvin klein stuff that was put out back in the very early 90s. but perhaps it’s because i like skeevy.
Carmen was correct in calling it “black face”. Kai did a wonderful of explaining this.
I don’t know what to think of it yet, but it seems like some kind of exploitation or mockery from the first glance (the lips over did it).
Wendi said: kinda lol…not a haha, she can’t buy makeup at clinique lol
Perhaps she should ask Sherwin Williams.
Sad.
Alright, it’s confirmed - I shared this post with a super-objective friend (since I tend to be not so objective with this kinda stuff). He hates it. He actually used the term “auction block chic” to describe it. The cake and candy references are definitely erotic in this context. He also thinks we may have inadvertently put “skeevy” - a word I use WAYYYY too often - back into circulation!
Even if this model is actually a black woman, I feel like black people in blacker face still adds up to blackface.
I agree. Angel H. points out all the obvious things they did to make this woman as big a stereotype as possible.
“mammy” head-wrap
blacker skin
neon pink lipstick
“jezebel” cleavage
“American Apparel is under 10 years of age…” is placed conspicuously close to her cleavage
And I notice that unlike white models who never have bags under their eyes, this model does
Don’t forget that she’s not smiling. White women models always smile, but in blackface, only the men smile.
There’s that smudge of white haze on the lower left. Most other modeling edits would airbrush out such a thing, or they wouldn’t publish a picture of a picture with glare on it, but I guess when she’s black, enough is enough.
“Sweeter than candy, better than cake”?
What is she for sale? I’m actually more angry with some of the absurd and racist comments on the website.
I think the photo and the model are gorgeous. But I do wonder if it’s really an AA ad. This photo is quite stylized and the model is wearing makeup. Both things which contradict the raw/real/makeup less/sex images that AA usually promotes. Perhaps this was just the magazine’s own photo shoot.
I would agree with other commentators here that this is racist regardless of whether the model is black or white.
nichelle, it is the magazine’s own photo shoot. Not an AA ad.
It seems that Africans (international or otherwise) are so often called ‘black’ people that some of you are convincing yourselves about the genuine depiction of her grayish/blackish/shinny/misty skin tone. Just like ads making ‘white’ people look like they came out of the womb with a tan - or in some cases, powder white - the same can be true here, so please remember the fact that this is a professional shot and I doubt that they would leave photos untouched!
Um, for those of you asking if the model being actually black matters you need to do a little reading around in the history of black face. Black performers also wore black face. Have any of you heard of Bert Williams?
The point was Williams, who was born in the Carribean, had to wear black face to perform the American Black.
The point about anti-black racism, is that everyone, is asked to participate. This is similar to sexism where women are made to compete with each other for the favor of Daddy (bell hooks has a nice essay about black men and white women called “Doing it for Daddy.”) Think about how many times the women on shows like Flavor of Love or even a nighttime soap refer to each other as bitch.
I saw some other commentary on the site and some of it basically stated “Get over it, it’s art. Don’t be so sensitive.” How easy for some people to say. When you can see yourself affirmed on a daily basis, then perhaps seeing a caricature of yourself on display isn’t so devastating to your sense of self. But when you see constant bombardments of stereotypical ideas and images being bandied about, you can’t just get over it.
The ad was tacky, racist and insensitive. I think the model was African American, but there is a deliberate effort to dehumanize her, to make her into a one-dimensional advertising tagline like “sweeter than cake.”
I am tired of seeing this crap. I hate it when people want to deem it “artistic.” It is not artistic! It’s all about shock value and it is denigrating. You can be artistic without being offensive. Great artists and photographers have managed to capture the imagination of millions without resorting to blackface. Perhaps some people should take note.
Carmen makes an important point, this is an editorial, not an AA ad.
As for the “bags” under her eyes, I don’t see them and I like that she is not photo shopped into a poreless doll. I think the shape of her face is very youthful and beautiful.
I also find the contrast of the colors very interesting. I am not dark skinned, but I don’t think that women with dark skin should be afraid to experiment with bright colors in make up. It actually looks better on very dark skin.
Maybe because we are not used to seeing so many dark skinned black models these images seem exploitative to some people. I wonder about the differences between the impressions that Americans have vs. Europeans, and Africans towards these kinds of images.
White “liberals” in deep denial! Ha ha ha…
Keep on keeping on….
Hi Georgia,
I also love to see real dark skin black models, and I also wish to see more.
But actually, I don’t think this issue is about a “dark skin” model wearing bright colors. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, it’s about the black face make-up and bright colors on top of it - to say what? I also think this is the issue for most.
I just had to leave a comment on the AA website.. personally I could care less if the model is indeed Black. Her race is entirely irrelevant. Quite a marketing ploy… the only way to sell t-shirts is to put a woman with various coloured shirts adorning her body in blackface? With all the people who tend to fill up a board room this is the most stellar idea they could come up with? This is in poor taste and no matter what the artistic aim was. However you try to spin it.. its tacky.
I’m sure there are far better angles they could have taken to spotlight the bright colours.
Are we *really* arguing whether or not this is racist!?! Dov Charney is an annoying, creepy, sleazy hipster who needs his ass kicked. He’s cultivated “bad boy” CEO image, but guess what? Sexually harassing your chicana employees and promoting Aunt Jemima images isn’t anti-PC or rebellious — it’s just more of the same ol’ shite.
honestly, the words “sweeter than candy. better than cake.”, affixed right above the model’s breasts,are really what make the image disturbing for me. that’s really what gives it an auction block tone. well that and her dead, helpless gaze. the selling of a sweet young black body, made more “exotic” with by emphasizing her skin with black makeup and pink lipstick. that’s what i see.
i’m not offended by the photo itself, however. i just think its stupid. like, what are you trying to say here? what are you trying to convey with this image? i don’t understand. perhaps i should pick up the mag and check out the whole spread. some i-D photographer trying to push the limits, perhaps? but why? to celebrate the oh-so-radical-and-revolutionary American Apparel company? pfft.
Don’t look for racism where none exists..
It’s an editorial, not an AA ad, so Dov has nothing to do with it… and it’s a gorgeous photo… So, using big pink lipstick is racist?
Not to mention, the clothing featured on her is, get this, AA — it was chosen because it’s AA, not because they are racist.
There are plenty of racist companies / people in the world to avoid getting caught up in this type of garbage.
Simply because someone “says” something is racist, doesn’t make it so…..
In anticipation of the conversation that comment #32 will no doubt generate, attached please find a link of images from the Jim Crow Museum.
Hi there - a relevant book came out in paperback recently. It’s about how even the most well-meaning white people perpetuate racism. It’s written by a white woman who conducted research that lead her to realize that there really is no such thing as “not racist”. Her web site is silentracism.com if you’re interested.
The Truth has spoken.
What if, instead of pink lipstick, the shade had been a florescent green or yellow? Of course, green isn’t pink or a variation of red that historically been used in black face propoganda in the past, but it’s still bright, and that’s why people are objecting, isn’t it?If the model had been a fair skinned black woman or white, shot in close up, in the exact same pose, donning the same attire, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It’s only because the model is dark skinned with bright lipstick that it’s supposedly offensive. Even the slogan “Sweeter than candy. Better than cake,” would most likely be viewed in the context of the candy colored shirts and lipstick, that she’s (the model) wearing, not that the model’s rich, brown skin tone is being denigrated as “sweeter than candy. better than cake”. I’ll admit, that at first, I did take offense, because originally, I thought the model was a spray painted, white girl, but now that I think the model really is that color, I think it’s a lovely photo. It’s fashion, and if I was the art director, I wouldn’t have been discouraged to use another shade of lipstick besides that pink with those shirts, simply because the model was dark. That in and of itself is racist. The pink is part of the color spectrum being displayed not an attempt to make black face chic.
Whatever the intentions of anyone involved with the shoot, the image is visually reminicent of blackface imagary–I was struck by that immediately, as I’d imagine anyone else familiar with such imagery was. It strikes me as highly implausible that no one at I-D realized this would happen–they are professionals after all. One doesn’t have to speculate as to conscious intent in order to find this page racist an offensive, they just need to know a little bit about history and historical racis propaghanda.
However, I would be quite surprised if this image was not chosen as a conscious attempt to visually reference blackface, and push buttons for the reader/viewer whether they realize which buttonas are being pushed and why. Otherwise there’s a gross level of professional incompetancy going on at I-D. It is the job of art directors and fashion photographers to know how to push buttons, find the “edge” and have a background in pop culture imagery–to be successful in their fields they have to get this shit.
The fact that AA has embraced rather than distanced themselves from this is both disgusting and completely unsurprising. Loathe.
TheTruth: Simply because you “say” something isn’t racist doesn’t make it so. Get this: Your unsupported declaration, aside from the chuckleworthy pretension of bequeathing unto yourself an omniscient status as arbiter of racism and truth (hehehe, that’s pretty funny), adds exactly nothing to the substance of this discussion. You’ve simply said, “It’s not racist because I said so!” Um, okay. Good one.
tasha: Whenever someone begins an argument with a fallacious flip (”what if you changed this color or that detail and reversed the racial situation…?”), it indicates that they are attempting to remove a given situation from history. But we do not actually live in a world that is removed from history, so it’s a sloppy theoretical slight of hand and fundamentally intellectually dishonest. No matter how much you wish history didn’t happen the way it turned out, it did happen and the world works the way it does because of it. Clicking your heels and repeatedly saying “no history, no racism” won’t make it so.
You see, I could theoretically flip this image into one featuring a white model, but in order to have this flip make sense I’d also have to theoretically flip world history so that colonialist thugs from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa sailed to Europe and brutally kidnapped millions of white people and brought them back home in chains as slaves and repeatedly raped them and murdered them en masse and broke up families and outlawed languages and cultures, for centuries; and now the descendants of those white slaves still live and suffer under harsh systems of imperialistic brown supremacism, and there’s a long history of racist whiteface; well now, if I imagine all of that as the historical context, then I can imagine a white model in this image, and yes it would probably be seen as racist. But that’s not the world we live in; and the world we live in is the context for this conversation. Theoretical flips which deny the historical forces which have shaped our world are meaningless.
Okay, this is about the fourth or fifth time I’ve gone through these Racism 101 exercises in Racialicious comments, it’s somebody else’s turn!
Cheers.
to follow up on kai’s comment, i agree…it’s all in context.
i also think that even if the woman were white (just plain white, not in blackface or anything), people would still object to the line about candy and cake. I noticed that before i noticed the woman or the clothes b/c i found it sexist and objectifying. if she were a white woman, white feminists would probably have the same objection, so i think it’s ignoring a lot just to assume people found the line questionable b/c the model is of african descent.
“Okay, this is about the fourth or fifth time I’ve gone through these Racism 101 exercises in Racialicious comments . . .”
An exercise I could’ve done without. Kai, if the syntax of my argument bothers you (fallacious flip and all), then, by all means, cut and paste the sentence “ It’s only because the model is dark skinned with bright lipstick that it’s supposedly offensive,” to the beginning of my first paragraph; that way you can’t accuse me of being intellectually dishonest or ignoring history. My argument did not suggest that Africans never suffered at the hands of European colonial imperialists or that blackface never existed. It suggested that in my subjective opinion, in this case, I do not think that the art director was not being disingenuous, and he/she used a dark skinned girl, rather than a lighter skinned one, in a fashion editorial as a pallet to showcase color, form and textile, not to evoke blackface. I also found it interesting that you managed to address so many points in your lengthy diatribe, except the ones I inquired about, such as, would the photo have been as provocative if the lipstick happened to be just as bright but in another shade, such as green or yellow? Is it the tint of the lipstick that’s bothersome or the use of pink, a shade of the primary color red? By your logic (which for the time being, I’ll consider the antithesis of my so called “no racism, no history” mindset) dark skinned women should never don bright lipstick, less they be walking billboards for Jim Crow. If you don’t like my analogy of substituting the model above for a lighter skinned woman, fine, change nothing about the model in the photo. My point could just as easily have been illustrated had the magazine juxtaposed the image above next to an identical photo featuring a white model on the opposite page, but instead of being called racist, it could have been called the United Colors of Benetton.
It suggested that in my subjective opinion, in this case, I do not think that the art director was (delete not) being disingenuous, and he/she used a dark skinned girl, rather than a lighter skinned one, in a fashion editorial as a pallet to showcase color, form and textile, not to evoke blackface.
Tasha said,
I do not think that the art director was (delete not) being disingenuous, and he/she used a dark skinned girl, rather than a lighter skinned one, in a fashion editorial as a pallet to showcase color, form and textile, not to evoke blackface.
Ah, the “intent” clause… even the best ones (when coupled with historical ignorance) can do a pretty great job of getting folks on the road to hell.
Does anyone know where I might few other photos of this model? On the photo itself it reads: “Model: Sasha at Verve”. I’ve been trying to find more info on her, to see what her true skin color it, with no luck so far.
Also, does anyone else recognize the line “sweeter than candy/better than cake” as a lyric from the song “Popsicle” by New Kids on The Block. Is that where they lifted those lines from or was that simply a coincidence?
My initial reaction to this add was to see it as blackface, but that’s because that’s how it was presented to me (someone posted it on another message board) further, there was a picture of a white model right next to it that gave the impression that the woman in the add was the white model in black face - I’ve since noticed that that’s not true.
The add still bothers me - on a number of different levels - I’m still looking for more background info.
Somebody needs to send this to Spike Lee, not to mention Jesse and Al. Both American Apparel and i-D magazine need to be severely criticized in the worldwide press for this.
Actually blackface was the general practice of burning cork and applying the ashy mixture to someone’s face to “blacken” it up. One of the biggest blackface actors was Bert Williams - he was black. Just like Amos & Andy
Sadly, I’ll be nixing my corporate account with American Apparel - this is just a tad on the irresponsible side when it comes to something like blackface.
The Interloper:
Someone else on another site had this link:
http://www.selectmodelmanagement.co.uk/site/select.aspx
Sasha is under the Verve section. They definitely darkened her up in photoshop while brightening up her lipstick.
there is also an interesting post on this issue here:
http://misteriotremendum.sevenandsix.com/2007/08/15/american-apparel-racist
It’s not an AA ad!
It doesn’t even look like one.
Although the owner is openly a perv.
I don’t believe the company to be sexist or racist
And let’s be truthful about it, people. She allowed herself to be depicted this way.
I think American Apparel has a good understanding of the people that buy their stuff.
It’s about image, not intent.
We see people on the street dressed like this all the time, [they’re not photoshopped like this] and we know that they don’t intend to express anything, except their trendiness and the desire to get paid and be famous
By the way, I’m a dreadloched, black parent of 2 adult children and I found the photo kind of amusing
I understand how the ad can be seen as racist - and then again, when the picture was described to me by a friend I had a totally different idea of what it would be… I suppose part of me thinks this whole aesthetic could be used to some greater good… It’s roots are evil, but then so is the extremely popular goth look which utilises army hats, dungarees, short haircuts — it originates from a film about a POW who falls in love with her Nazi imprisoner. If there was a little more creativity involved I think this kind of thing could be very interesting…
I doubt very much that this model is an active facilitator of race hate and dispise the implication that she may have been manipulated to be so. I think it is very important that internet forums such as this don’t become censors of creativity and we should all be aware that, although disscusion of race have never been more significant, they should not mutually exclusive with free expression . For me this is a full page dedicated to a beautiful black woman in a beautiful, if melancholic image in a very progressive fasion magasine. Black women are so massively under represented in fashion magazine, especialy in America and italy, that looking so hard to find racism in this image is missing the point entirley.
this image is a beautiful image. whether or not it has racial implications will never be known, unless you go straight to the source. Shopping at AA or whether you agree with their practices also has nothing to do with it. we live in a warhol world. this image is pop. that woman made her choice by being in the picture, that photographer made their choice by taking the picture and the art director made their choice by giving it the go for publication. our societies problems lie much deeper than anyone is looking. as long as you label things as “racist” or “sexist” you limit it and that’s all it can be. seems kind of sad that people are so comortable in the labels and the boxes that our forefathers have passed on to us. racism exists yes. AA is not a racist company. it’s a lifestyle. they are controversial, they are innovators, and they are successful. They are more positive and progressive than any other major label out there.
if you really want to combat racism in the press please focus your attention on the publications that spew the “truth” about the society we live in(i.e. wall street, NY times etc.) open your eyes. Art is really the only thing we have left.
We recorded a debate about the Ads.
See what you think.
Upon first seeing this ad I thought it was very beautiful. I am a black woman and I didn’t think for a moment think this was a black face ad. Reading others concerns in regards to her headwrap and bright lipstick I understand the argument, but I truly didn’t get that at all. Questions about who styled her and what their motives were are very important but I think this is an ad featuring a stunning dark-skinned black woman in bright contrasting clothing and lipstick. Unfortunately with our history there is often that question of motive and intent and where as other races can do something and have it be art, on a dark-skinned black woman it can mean (or be intended to mean) so many negative, ignorant things. All this would be made less confusing though if the racial injustices of the past were taken seriously and not so quickly undermined by other races who just can’t bother to consider and opposite perspective. As blacks we are not granted the privelage of ignoring what the dominant culture deems unacceptable; it is forced upon us all as anti-American, archaic, just plain wrong.
As a makeup artist, I totally understand the appeal of the overall color scheme chosen, but I question why wasn’t a model with naturally dark skin coloring cast for this shoot instead?
I vaguely remember seeing this image when it was first published, but I can’t recall any other images from that same spread, so I don’t have any other context to place a model painted almost black with bright pink lips besides the history of blackface. It they only wanted a dark model, why didn’t they just hire one? What was the motivation to actually paint her?
And the “sweeter than…” line is way too reminiscent of tag lines from old Jim Crow signs selling sundries and groceries. I think this only adds to the Jemima connotations.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of New Demographic, a diversity education firm. Her perspectives on race and diversity have been featured on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, USA Today, and The New York Times.
Racialicious! is a production of New Demographic.
© 2004-2007 New Demographic. All rights reserved.
blog.txt theme by Scott
Racism Or Art? / Stereohyped on 17 Aug 2007 at 2:00 pm
[…] [Racialicious] Aug 17, 2007 · Link · 2 Responses Related Posts • 08/17/07: Minority Report (Comments: 4) • 08/15/07: Minority Report (Comments: 0) • 08/14/07: Minority Report (Comments: 2) • 08/13/07: Parting Shots (Comments: 4) • 08/13/07: Minority Report (Comments: 1) Tagged: Racism · Stereotypes · American Apparel Comments (2) […]
ATR 80 - Race, Fashion and Beauty - 08/21/2007 - Submit an Audio Comment: 206-203-3983 at Addicted to Race - beyond diversity buzzwords on 21 Aug 2007 at 8:50 am
[…] American Apparel trumpets blackface fashion spread in i-D magazine […]