Comments

1. Anonymiss wrote:

   Off topic:
   Dov Charney’s a sex-crazed weirdo? Say it ain’t so? I was so impressed with his profile on 20/20. Oh well…

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 8:04 am ¶

2. BORED KIDZ!!!!!!!!!! wrote:

   Uh, maybe they’re just sick of Blondes everywhere? L.A is full of Blondes– who are overrated anyway.

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 8:32 am ¶

3. DivergentDana wrote:

   Yeah, it sucks that on one hand, AA does so much right as far as its manufacturing, but on the other hand, by giving them your dollars, you’re giving them a pass on the sexism. About LiLo’s line, guess we’ll just have to wait and see… but goodness, I despise leggings.

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

4. octogalore wrote:

   I’m not sure. I think if they’d asked for specific races, then that would be problematic and revealing of a fetish mentality. But they seem to be focusing more on NOT blondes, anything else, and diversity. I’m not sure what “off beauty” means, but the whole message seems to be more about getting away from the stereotypical “you must be blonde, blue-eyed and look a certain way” thing.

   I generally get very irritated at celeb fashion lines. And I do think the cheapness is problematic in combination with the search for diverse models, and needs a better explanation. But the language describing the type of model sought in the ad doesn’t bother me.

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 11:39 am ¶

5. sylvie wrote:

   i guess i don’t like how “diverse, multi-cultural, mixed races” is followed by “off beauty.” it might just be semantics, or it might be equating non-white with off beauty, whatever that means. and coming from a “designer” that has bleached and starved her way to attaining blonde, white beauty just doesn’t jibe well with me.

   btw, i just saw an AA ad on the back of last week’s The Onion, and it featured a pic of Dov’s green card followed by some quotes on fair immigration law. i’m all for more immigration rights, but the ad still doesn’t make me think Dov’s anything more than a perv who snaps pics of his employees bending over in booty shorts in some wood-paneled basement.

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶

6. DivergentDana wrote:

   “and coming from a “designer” that has bleached and starved her way to attaining blonde, white beauty just doesn’t jibe well with me.”

   Good point. She may not want blondes because she may prominently feature herself in the ads, and she doesn’t want anyone “stealing her thunder.” The aesthetic may be partially based on contrast, like Gwen and her dancers.

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶

7. lowercase tasha wrote:

   Sort of off topic

   Speaking of American Apparel . . .

   I want to go on record saying that I was wrong about the AA/I-D magazine photo blackface controversy. I defended the ad, saying that it was more of color contrast thing, not a blackface thing. You know cause I didn’t like the direction in which the discussion was heading, which to me seemed like the model was being picked on for being dark and wearing bright colored, pink lipstick. Had the model been light skinned we wouldn’t have been criticizing the photo in a racial context, but because the model was dark, the pink lipstick automatically transformed her into a walking billboard for Jim Crow. I rather liked it, myself and could’ve seen myself buying the picture in poster size and hanging it up on a wall.

   Anyway, I showed it to a friend who agreed with me, and she said it was reminiscent of United Colors of Benetton. We also couldn’t put our fingers on it, but we thought there was something about the model that was familiar. I was certain that there was something about that girl’s face that I had seen before, and then it dawned on me. I knew who she reminded me of. I said, yeah, “She looks like a dark skinned Sasha Gaye Hunt, that black, wraith looking model from the Fall 2007 St. Laurent show.” So, later on, I googled Sasha Gaye Hunt, and what do you think popped up? The AA blackface ad! And then my jaw dropped because in real life, she’s Mary J. Blige’s or maybe Oprah’s complexion. They spray painted her skin dark brown and put that pink lipstick on her on purpose, and why would they have done that if not to get a rise out of people by playing with blackface?

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶

8. Cara wrote:

   …just a question: Is there anything wrong w/ “regular” white ppl and/or other regular “mono” racial ppl? It makes me wonder. I blk but light skineed…were would I fall? Where would a light skineed Asian or Latina figure into the skeem of this Ad campagin? IDK, it’s kinda weird to me. I’m tired of perfect “looking” faces and body types, not necessarity “blondes”……though I understand that many ppl in the industry get highlights and go blonder and blonder as time goes on. In POC I’ve heard this called the “Beyonce-fication” of women of color. I’m still giveing more thought to the issue though……

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶

9. Cara wrote:

   ** I’m blk but light skineed…were would I fall?**

   Posted 12 May 2008 at 3:38 pm ¶

10. Sarah J wrote:

    How many different pairs of leggings can you possibly need models for?

    And yeah, what the heck does “off beauty” mean?

    Posted 12 May 2008 at 3:42 pm ¶

11. lechatnoir wrote:

    hum.. I tried hard to read the add the add without any racial biais, but sorry . white people do not use words such as “light skinned” , that’s why the used the more “clinical” depiction of a diverse heritage such as multi-racial, It could mean anything but it seems to me that Mulattos are using it for themselves these days.

    @Cara
    I have never heard a sista tell another white person ” i am light” , you sure know how that sounds lol!

    the “off beauty” I couldn’t help but think it was the average beautiful sista, i am still mhhhh… at it but my antenna is ON on the black thing. They can’t have this card on a Latina noo way !!!!!
    http://www.ethnicitymodels.com/
    features some of the finest “mixed with everything” usually their bio is filled with the depiction of their ancestry its a good reading ( at times) these women are banging. let’s be honest here.Lindzie has plenty to choose from there.

    Posted 12 May 2008 at 6:46 pm ¶

12. Angela wrote:

    I think “off beauty” means unconventional features, not anything to do with people of color=unbeautiful.

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 12:26 am ¶

13. Whitney wrote:

    Sarah–”Off beauty” refers to women who have “imperfections” like a gap between their teeth, a funky hair cut, etc, and it also refers to women who are not the “traditional” form of beauty, who are pretty, but not someone who would be described as “traditional.” It’s a huge compliment in the fashion industry to have “off beauty.” One example I can think of is Chanel Iman.

    People seem to have a thing for mixed people now, and it kind of sucks for us people who aren’t mixed.

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 2:41 am ¶

14. Bahston wrote:

    In adds like these where they say things like; multi-ethnic or cultural it basically means they want a biracial model who represents a cross-over appeal. Not so sleazy of an add, just a bit too transparent in a pseudo-politically correct sort of way.

    I prefer this to anything that Dove Charney does at AA.

    lowercase tasha has a point about that racist blackface add in i.d., they never apologized for that crap either. To me, that sends a strong message about how they regard their black consumer base, blatantly insulting us on one hand and selling us gold spandex hot pants with the other.

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 4:44 am ¶

15. Lainad wrote:

    How do you ‘design’ leggings?

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 5:52 am ¶

16. Spence wrote:

    Hey Bahston, just one point. I work for American Apparel, and the image that started this whole discussion is actually not an American Apparel ad. It was a photo shoot that i.D. did that happened to feature some AA scarfs. American Apparel never approved that image, or had anything to do with it, it was the photographer’s creation only, not a marketing campaign. We had a whole discussion here at the time about it, and I can tell you, we were just as surprised by it as anyone. Like on this blog, some of us here liked it, and a lot of us hated it. When I found out that the model had been darkened, that freaked me out a bit as well. We love photography that pushes the edge, but this would not have been something that we would have done here at the factory, I’m sure. I’d like to hear what the photographer’s explanation for it is myself, beyond the sheer shock value.

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶

17. sylvie wrote:

    “One example I can think of is Chanel Iman.”

    Um, I’d say she’s pretty close to being classically beautiful. Is she considered off-beauty because she’s biracial?

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶

18. BORED KIDZ !!!!!!!!! wrote:

    @ Sylvie:

    probably not. Someone like Alex Wek would be considered “off-beauty,” because the fashion biz usually won’t hire models who look like her.

    Posted 13 May 2008 at 6:19 pm ¶

19. lowercase tasha wrote:

    @Lainad

    It’s possible to design leggings. I have a pair of black, latex ones by this Russian label Kova & T. I hadn’t really seen any black, latex leggings around until recently, but it’s not like I was exactly looking.

    I’ve always loved LiLo’s (Rachel Zoe’s) style. So, I will be checking for the leggings.

    @Bored Kidz

    What?!!

    As far as black models go, dark skinned girls are all the rage in the high fashion world, right now. The commercial modeling world is different though, but those Nina Keita “Old Navy” ads are very nice. I actually think Alek Wek has opened doors for models that look like her. Georgie Badiel from Burkina Faso walked for Marc Jacobs spring 08′ show, and I saw her in an NYT magazine fashion editorial not too long ago. Ajuma Nasayana from Kenya is quite ubiquitous these days on the runway. Anyway, I always thought that Chanel Iman was overrated. I wish her the best, I do, because it’s really grim right now for black girls, but I think her look is more commercial than high fashion. These are my favorite black models right now.

    Jourdan Dunn

    http://supermodels.nl/jourdandunn/pictures/1

    Kinee Diouf

    http://fashionorgasm.blogspot.com/2007/02/editorial-in-w-magazine-welcome-to-my.html

    Sessilee Lopez

    http://supermodels.nl/sessileelopez/pictures/2

    And my perennial favorite, whose career I had hoped would have picked up more traction after her American Vogue editorials, Jaunel McKenzie

    http://onethousandmodels.com/jaunelmckenzie/jaunelmckenzie-img15.html

    Posted 14 May 2008 at 6:57 am ¶

20. Whitney wrote:

    Sylvie– She’s definitely different, different that the other models. She’s not a cookie-cutter model, and that’s what gives her her “off-beauty.” There’s something special and different about her.

    Another off-beauty model would be Gemma Ward.

    BTW, lowercase tasha, I saw Chanel Iman in a photo spread for Vogue featuring handbags, shoes and accessories and they gave her this really funky hair that I thought suited her. It was Jan 2008.

    Thanks for the links. Jourdan Dunn is gorgeous, I wish I had her cheekbones.

    Posted 14 May 2008 at 8:39 am ¶

21. marge twain wrote:

    @Bored Kids: Alek Wek is not “off beauty” I have never heard her described that way. She has classic symmetrical beauty. “Off” in fashion is a compliment for a model with a quirky or androgynous or not conventional(though not “ethnic”) look. Think Annick Goutal, Linda Evangelista, Gemma Ward.

    I am heartened by this ad. I want to see diverse representations of beauty and this is a step toward that.

    Posted 15 May 2008 at 12:38 am ¶

22. Whitney wrote:

    @Marge Twain–I think that Agyness Deyn is a part of that group of models that are quirky and unconventional. And I love her sense of stye.

    “I am heartened by this ad. I want to see diverse representations of beauty and this is a step toward that.”

    I do too. But not in an American Apparel kind of way.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:27 am ¶

23. Nina wrote:

    Cant win, can they. If they try to make sure women understand that they embrace and welcome those who arent the blonde blue-eyed standard, then we are suspicious.
    If they dont, we’re resentful.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶

24. DreaD wrote:

    @ Nina…

    Suspicion AND resentment are fair when issues of race are present. Consider:

    *The reality and perseverance of the Jim Crow-esque images of Black women
    *The reality that most often when women of color are sought out in the media, it is for the purposes of exoticization and/or for augmenting whiteness. We should be particularly suspicious in this case, b/c of Lindsay Lohan’s problematic past racial blunders (calling Pres. Obama “colored”…)
    *The reality that there IS a standard. That you have to specially cast for non-white/blond models speaks volumes.
    *That multi-racial-ness and diversity are concepts that don’t actually de-centralize whiteness. They just “spice things up” a bit.

    AND SO ON.

    The ad perhaps could have said something like “women of all races encouraged to apply, because we know the fashion industry is racist as hell.” Ah, only in a dream.

    The reason I wanted to respond to you in particular is because your comment speaks to the anxiety and cynicism of folks who don’t want to deal with race and who just wish race-conscious folks to just get over it. It ain’t that easy, sis. This shit took a minute to be created. It won’t disappear just b/c it makes folks uncomfortable.

    That is why this whole strand of conversation, in all its suspicion, resentment, ignorance, critique, insightful race analysis, complexity and emotion is good: simply b/c it is happening — which in our “post-racial” area is the only way we will actually move towards healing around race – and the time it seems you wish for in which we can put away suspicion and resentment.

    Posted 23 May 2009 at 7:51 pm ¶