Gisele Bündchen’s Photo Shoot is a Study in Interpreting Racially Charged Images

by Latoya Peterson

What does this picture call to mind for you? What is the first thing you think of?

This shot one of a series of photos featuring Gisele Bündchen, shot by Norwegian fashion photographer Sølve Sundsbø. The pictures make use of Gisele’s body contrasted with those of buff, dark skinned male models. I am often wary of the color contrast idea in fashion photography – darker skinned minorities always seem to end up as background color – the results are usually striking.

However, there also seems to be another dynamic at play here.

Over at Project Rungay, the authors of the post playfully warn their readers to “Grab a glass of icewater and a fan, girls” indicating the raciness of the pictures below.

One of the selected photos is used to show Gisele’s physical desire for her on-camera companions:

But the first comment on the Project Rungay post reveals some of the tensions at play with these images:

Ross
5/3/09 8:36 AM

wow, those photos are fierce. can’t tell if the guys are her slaves or if they’re raping her. interesting race dialogue. the first photo is super sexy

Your thoughts, readers?

(Photos:Photos: Sølve Sundsbø via Project Runga
(Thanks to Angel H., Roldy, Butterflyrei, and Taylord for the tips!)

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Are There Hidden Racial Messages In Gisele Bundchen’s Photos? « The Gholston Post on 06 May 2009 at 9:55 pm

[...] http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/06/gisele-bundchens-photo-shoot-is-a-study-in-interpreting-racia... This is just one of the many photos that has people talking on the Racialicious Web site. As you [...]
The Thin Line Between Art and Explotation at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 07 May 2009 at 11:35 am

[...] watched yesterday’s thread with great interest – and not just because the racists came out to play behind the scenes. When I [...]
Jezebel Asks: Are These Images Racy or Racially Insensitive? | The Fashion Bomb Blog /// All Urban Fashion... All the Time on 07 May 2009 at 2:24 pm

[...] Source & Source [...]
Friday reads « The Gender Blender Blog on 08 May 2009 at 3:42 pm

[...] Racially charged images in Gisele Bündchen’s latest photo shoot. [...]
Those who “don’t see color” « Brook Elliott-Buettner, MSW, MPA on 26 May 2009 at 4:08 pm

[...] there are these two posts (the second is a re-post) on Racialicious that point out images in popular culture that [...]

Comments

Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

I don’t see anything racial or racist here. It’s just fashion photography using two sharply contrasting skin colors to grab your attention. Let’s face it, they all have nice, toned bodies…

*jealous*

thank god I brought salad for lunch to eat at work.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶
macon d wrote:

Er, they don’t work for me. Attention-getting rather than anti-racist. And thus, racist. Another example of white center-staging at the expense of anonymous marginalized blackness, unless I’m missing something.

I think Adrian Piper did a much better job of this sort of thing with her series “Vanilla Nightmares.” There’s some discussion of her and that series here.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:

The photos look like a poster for a new millennium remake of Birth of a Nation.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:

@Miles Ellison
I too immediately thought of Birth of Nation. I’m wondering if I would have had the same thought if it had been a white male model surrounded by dark-skinned black women. Can’t always check my American racial baggage at the door.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶
deathblossom wrote:

Why is she the only one not naked? I hate the first photo. Maybe I’m jaded, but the first thing I thought of without seeing the other photos was “Irresistable white woman being smothered and grabbed at by black men” and then when the rest of the photos popped up, it just looked like typical race fantasy crap. Nothing fashionable about it.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶
jaden_loves@yahoo.co wrote:

Why are they nude and she’s not? So, its ok for them to expose their bodies but not her? The photographer is exploiting their black bodies for gain in so many ways in these photographs.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:24 pm ¶
Jennifer wrote:

“wow, those photos are fierce. can’t tell if the guys are her slaves or if they’re raping her. interesting race dialogue. the first photo is super sexy” That about says it all now doesn’t it?

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
Keith wrote:

Yeah it is racist. It depicts black men as nothing more than animals.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:29 pm ¶
Bagelsan wrote:

Why is she the only one not naked?

Putting aside the races for a second (hah!) having the female model clothed while the male models are naked seems cool at first. It seems like the reverse is true more often, so I don’t have a problem with a woman using men as accessories in a photo shoot per say. (Then you put the race back in and it’s like — seriously? More “primitive” naked POC used as props for “civilized” white people? Urm…)

Maybe other poses would have worked better, so that you aren’t *literally* having a group of black men carrying off a white woman (why did all the dogs perk up but I can’t hear anything?) If they were posed as, say, equals that were interacting with each other as actual people it would be cool and sexy, imho.

(Gah those guys are so freaking built! Please — can we get the white lady out of the shot? She’s blocking the models…)

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:33 pm ¶
RJG wrote:

I’m definitely at odds with the photoshoot. On one hand, if I ignore any kind of outside-of-the-photos-themselves context, I totally get the concept of wanting to have some contrast and this being an understandable way to pull it off.

But then how-many-centuries-long amounts of context get tossed in and it ends up making things more difficult.

The questions (and answers) I end up having about the shoot.

Q1. Why a white female model and black male models? Why not a black woman and white males?
A1. Well, I assume the photoshoot was meant for the lady, so by default if they wanted contrast I can see why it then also had black males.

Q2. But what about if it was a black woman and white males, anyway?
A2. Honestly, I think we’d still be having the same discussion. That’s not to say “great, no one will EVER be happy ever BAH!” or anything, just that when this kind of contrast takes place, it just ends up also involving a ton of racial context even if it had no intention of doing so.

Q3. Where the hell are their pants!?
A3. Who knows! I do find it odd that the female model isn’t naked (unless the shoot revolves around the outfit?) while the male models are. That’s where I think a major chunk of the racial context might be coming into play.

Q4. Do muscles matter?
A4. I guess this might also be the other chunk of racial undertones that it could be going on in it. It’s not even like the dudes are model-models as much as really muscular-dude models. And there’s probably some undertones that could be pulled out of that. But, at the same time, I think most fashion photography tries to convey extremes which is why we end up seeing high production everything… even muscles, I guess. But there’s still some undertones going on.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:33 pm ¶
RJG wrote:

@Amused0472

I didn’t even remotely consider swapping genders when thinking of how it could be more/less problematic. That said, I doubt that this discussion wouldn’t take place if it was 4 white dudes + 1 black lady, 4 black ladies + 1 white dude, or 4 white ladies + 1 black dude. All of those pairings have too much historical/racial baggage to _not_ get a second glance.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
Bagelsan wrote:

“wow, those photos are fierce. can’t tell if the guys are her slaves or if they’re raping her. interesting race dialogue. the first photo is super sexy” That about says it all now doesn’t it?

Lol, right? “Good dialogue guys! Glad that we’ve established that black men are either slaves or rapists!”

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:38 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

Definitely racist. My thoughts reiterate what many here have already said:

1) Beautiful White woman desired by all these Black men.

2) White woman with her Black slaves.

3) White woman as the target of Black male sexuality.

4) Black men raping innocent White woman.

These pictures may me very uncomfortable.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:44 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

Sorry…that last sentence should be

These pictures make me very uncomfortable.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:

Hmm. Its a little all over the place, but we def have hypersexualized black men and an irresistible white woman. There’s weird power/gender stuff though…

The first photo with the hands on her face doesn’t have her in control, and we even have one guy’s finger in her mouth. So that invasive bit is pretty gendered.

The second one we’ve got four men who are meant to be looked AT, and we have her looking at US, so its a reversal of the male gaze (that Mulvey theory that the gaze of the camera is inherently male; she uses lots of examples to show how when women are portrayed in media they rarely look back and present themselves demurely basically) — but it seems like that’s only possible because she’s using her irresistible whiteness (and maybe that hideous bathing suit?).

Same with the third shot … yeah she’s being carried, but her gaze at the camera demonstrates she’s in control, so its flipping the immediate caveman dynamic.

The fourth is a little more complicated. He’s the one looking at us while she’s looking away, but she’s in an ACTION pose this time which is gendered male. Plus the clutchiness she has going on is coded as being more powerful.

…sorry I got verbose there. Basically I think this would be way less problematic if they’d included a non-black guy or two, then it could just be about flipping gendered power roles. Instead it just ends up as her flaunting her spot on the power structure. Or if it was just a couple, and the story of one relationship (say starting with the last picture and then going somewhere else), I could be into it.

But as it stands this is pretty gross.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 12:49 pm ¶
Kandeezie wrote:

King Kong.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:01 pm ¶
jo wrote:

I think the poses and expressions all look damn silly and make me embarrassed for the models, but that’s true of fashion (fashion? clothes? where?) photos in general. If anything they give me the annoying image of the photographer patting himself on the back for being edgy.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:09 pm ¶
Glossolalia Black wrote:

I guess I lose, because when I look at these pictures, I see:

1.) This is the same configuration as my mother and father (black man, white woman)

2.) I am in what this society calls an “interracial relationship”. In other words, I date someone a different color than me. I think this is kind of hot.

3.) People assume a lot of things: an artist’s intent, two human beings’ relationship, and that our feelings are the same as a lot of people’s.

I am enjoying reading others’ reactions to this. Peace to you.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:14 pm ¶
Julia wrote:

There was a similar conversation recently over at Field Negro about another image that juxtaposed black and white.
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2009/04/sometimes-picture-isnt-worth-thousand.html

In that image, it seemed to me like race was almost being used as an accessory. I’m wondering if there are hints of that here, too, although there’s much more going on as well, obviously, given how sexualized the images are. I just hope these sort of transracial photos aren’t becoming a new trend.

I don’t know if they’re racist, but they sure are annoying. If you want to say something about race, then say it. If you want to pretend to say something about race to get attention but actually have nothing to say…well, I wish you wouldn’t use racial tension as some kind of marketing tool.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:19 pm ¶
R. Prince wrote:

I see it in a different way in that darker skinned body always equals masculine, strong and lighter skinned, fragile, beautiful, feminine. It’s annoying as a darkskinned female… my 2 cents.

then it plays on the porn-ish black guys gang banging/raping the lone white girl….
besides that, I think this is the first time I think giselle looks beautiful…

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶
AintIAWoman wrote:

See, I think its mostly another example of using black bodies as the background color, or to make the whiteness stand out more. The way he’s tossed her over his shoulder in the 3rd one makes me uncomfortable.

The last one doesn’t bother me, though, because as has been pointed out, there’s an element of desire in her closed eyes, and she seems to be the active participant, not just the passive innocent white lady being carried away by black men. Its more of a one-on-one interracial love scenario.

Generally speaking I don’t have a TON of faith in most fashion shoots. They’re frequently sexist, racist, or both.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:36 pm ¶
Medea wrote:

The first image looked dreamlike, a sort of surreal representation of healing. I didn’t get any feeling of “these men are smothering her.”

The second and third images immediately set off the King Kong alarm bells. Perhaps it’s not fair–as [dave] said, Bundchen has the look of someone in control, and the men are wearing expressions of concentration, not rapaciousness–but I just don’t think you can have a photo of black men carrying a passive white woman (who’s wearing bracelets reminiscent of shackles) without evoking racist imagery.

The fourth struck me as a picture of two lovers, not much else.

It’s unusual to see a fashion shoot involving a clothed woman and naked men–but it seems like that can only happen when the men are black. Fail.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:37 pm ¶
c.n.edaw wrote:

“I don’t know if they’re racist, but they sure are annoying. If you want to say something about race, then say it. If you want to pretend to say something about race to get attention but actually have nothing to say…well, I wish you wouldn’t use racial tension as some kind of marketing tool.”

That about sums it up for me. That and I just don’t see how you get around the whole notion of this being another assertion of white female superiority, esp. over the black man.

As much as I love the color contrast thing in photography and I have nothing personal against Gisele, and find the male models very strking…all I see as a black woman ( who has been in and has nothing against interracial relationships)…is ONCE AGAIN the concept of ” irresistable white woman desired by ALL but ESPECIALLY black men” being shoved in my face supposedly for entertainment and perhaps shock value.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶
ceecee wrote:

I don’t see how raping comes into play but I can definitely see the racist undertones ie using black as the background for a black/white study in contrast & the overused gender roles black man/white woman.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
AintIAWoman wrote:

@ Julia:

I don’t know if they’re racist, but they sure are annoying. If you want to say something about race, then say it. If you want to pretend to say something about race to get attention but actually have nothing to say…well, I wish you wouldn’t use racial tension as some kind of marketing tool.

I agree with this. I think there’s certainly a way to use race creatively and powerfully in art, photography, etc, but I think FAR too often, its an easy way to get attention or act in a ‘controversial’ way, when in reality you’ve got nothing to say.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:

annoying…no trifiling rehash of existing racial myths

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶
Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

Ditto what Miles Ellison said.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:43 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

man, poor gisele…always in these kind of racially charged pics (remember the king kong vogue photo?!?!)

i think the color contrast is well done, if we leave the racial politics aside. if i saw it in a magazine, i’d probably come up with a lot of race and gender questions too… and even if that was not the artist’s intention, it’s like…almost subconscious nowadays…

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:44 pm ¶
Adam wrote:

First thought (from the initial photo)…that she doesn’t want what is happening to her but then I imagined caucasion male hands all over her face and my reaction would be the same.

For me, the tension revolves around the many men taking control of a woman. I think there’s more sexism than racism at play here.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶
lizriz wrote:

In the first one, the hands look caressing to me, as though she is loved. It makes me think of emerging or rebirth of some sort.

The second one is my least fav; it is as though they are erecting a statue. I think if she was naked it would be distracting, and I find their nudity tastefully discreet.

The third one is my favorite, it feels as though we’ve caught them in an intimate moment. Her expression seems to say they’re off for a bit of fun that’s none of our business. She is clearly not struggling, so it doesn’t occur to me that it’s not consensual.

The last one seems a simply sexy image.

I realize that there very well may be racial issues here, but that’s what I see, personally, when I look at these photos.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
cb3n wrote:

@RJG et al.

I’m sort of curious what people’s reactions would be if the genders of the participants were only partially inverted. What if it was four muscular black women running off with Gisele? What if it was the same black men with a single white male? What if it was four steroid drenched white men with a single black male? Or four white women with a lone black female?

For that matter, what if the participants were depicted as different combinations of transmen and transwomen?

I don’t think you can effectively discuss the ways in which these images are problematically racialized without discussing gender, but think the conversation on that front needs to be opened a little more than switching all of the subject’s genders along a binary and that by doing so we might more easily approach race in these photographs as well.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:

@RJG

I was thinking of how the big black amndingo/ black buck carries off the helpless white woman which in my mind has significantly more negative connotations than some pairings i can think of. If it was a single black female with a bunch of white dudes, I would be wrestling with the positivity of having an affirmation beauty and the whole slave woman to be raped and pillaged conundum. But, you are right, we probably would have some form of this conversation anyway.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:16 pm ¶
foshothoyo wrote:

getting off on racial stereotypes in a feigned attempt to promote anti-racist ideals

using a “political message” as a cover for your own fetishes and fantasies

is this an ad for the “obama is my slave” guy again?

oh, a yet nother wrongheaded racist “art” piece of garbage by some idiot who thinks they know what is going on?

*yawn*

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:

I really like these, but from the pictures shown here, I feel like her exploration of the racially charged landscape was rather two dimensional. I thought the gigantic bling on one of the fingers in the first picture was an indication of some other direction, but apparently not.

Each of these photographs could have been used to tell a very different story. But they all seem to be images of people who are culturally white and culturally black, and always straight.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:27 pm ¶
Xey wrote:

These images are definitely racially-charged. They (c/w)ouldn’t be categorized as such if the men in the photographs were are various ethnic/racial backgrounds. It definitely hypersexualises black men. And makes me think of the black men being her slaves.. or, maybe the men are Tarzan-like figures and she’s Jane. Again, where are their clothes?

I can’t ignore the artistic merit, though. Honestly, the photos are beautiful. And the men are as well.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶
Britta wrote:

Interesting to those who thought of “Birth of a Nation,” because for me, the image shoot made the whole photo career of Leni Riefenstahl flash before my eyes–first the Aryan women, then the muscular black men. Perhaps its my own baggage, but I find most photo paeans to the naked/scantily clad beautiful body to be slightly fascist.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶
Paz wrote:

Personally I think the photographer chose to have dark skinned black models to contrast with her light skin. But yes I can definitely see racist undertones.
I like the first and last ones, but the middle two perturb me, not just because of the racial aspect but also the gender one. I’ve seen too many fashion ads that seem to suggest gang rape.

Re: why Gisele is not nude — With her poses, you can’t disguise her private parts as you can with the males, and I think she doesn’t do complete nudity. Anyway I don’t think her being naked would make it any less uncomfortable.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 2:44 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

it also reminds me a bit of robert mapplethorpe’s Black Book (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Robert-Mapplethorpe/dp/0312021666), a photography series of black and whites he devoted entirely to black men. some caled it acist rfetish art, others called it cool.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:07 pm ¶
Madame Zenobia wrote:

# 38 Wendi Muse

EXACTLY.

I was just about to mention Mapplethorpe.

racist/fetish/cool…it was all of those things; he was an interesting artist.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:

@Wendi: Yeah it reminds me of that as well. Stuff like Maplethorpe (sp?) is problematic I think because the sex-positive part of me wants us to be open about sexuality (including things like fetishes, even when they’re kind of cringe-y), but then the social justice part of me just thinks RACIST SEXIST CREEP (or whatever). So the question, and I think Racialicous dug in with Ciara/JT video discussion, is whether something can be cool fetish art even when its racist. And that’s kind of a can of worms.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶
Ada wrote:

Maybe Gisele liked the Lebron cover so much she went to town with it here. It’s very annoying to see these kind of racially charged BDSM type ads. When will people get it through their thick skulls that this ish is offensive and not artistic?!?!

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
Erin Leigh wrote:

@Ada –
wait – how is this a BDSM type of ad? I honestly don’t see it (and this is coming from someone who’s been involved both personally and as a sex educator with various aspects of BDSM for 10 years).

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶
CDF wrote:

Isn’t this a rerun? I must be having deja vu as I thought this was already done by Gisele or was posted somewhere else last year (?). Just some photos of models to me (…and I’m too tired to be worrying about D.W. Griffith undertones…LOL!).

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶
MsBlenkins wrote:

The contrast is aesthetically appealing, but I have an awfully hard time divorcing it from historical context. Sobia @ #13 pretty much sums it up for me.
Glossolalia Black @ #18: I think I get what you’re saying. I am in an interracial relationship as well, and I am always interested in the ways interracial relationships are portrayed in pop culture–and happy if they are shown in a positive light. But this photo series? Well, for one thing, it’s not exactly depicting a “relationship” as such–the people seem really detached from each other. And whether you read it as “black men overpowering white woman” or “white woman commanding black men,” it is not a portrayal of equals.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 3:57 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

My judgment: racist imagery by a non-racist – which is perhaps more vexing becasue of the anxiety said non-racist surely knew would result.

First picture: evokes slavery imagery.

The two men in the back are pushing and the guy in front pulling just like they would cargo or something. Also, to me this picture (and the other pictures) projects NO DESIRABILITY from the men towards the woman. None of them are looking at her and are postured workman-like suggesting servitude. That they are bucket naked (no undearwear, nothing) ices it. To me, this goes well beyond the men being used as accessories as women are often used in male-subject photos.

Racial caricature:

The pictures continue the disservice of perpetuating black-white interracial dynamic as a “contrast” or “exotic”. There jsut does not seem to be equal interest with white pairing of any other race/ethnicity. Its almost as if IR relationships are seen as just natural with any other groups except for the black “other” which is both offensive and pathological.

Eroticizing black/white relationship:

While there is nothing wrong with showing black/white like Glosallia black suggests, this picture suggests for the millionth time the only thing a white woman has to offer is her whiteness and a black man, his body/organs. Black and white couples are incapable of deeming each other desirable or loving in any natural way that does not involve fantasy sex.

Ultimately, I am sick of this b.s. artsy wanna be intellectual types and their enablers and explainers:

Most black people I know never get it. They never find it creative. Just exploitative and tired. Black people only appearing as foil for white folks but never in their own capacity = Soft racism. If you want to really shock people, depict a black people (other minorities) in a positive and non-stereotypical mannerin your work.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶
Kismet wrote:

after i stopped drolling i had to admit i was pretty uncomfortable.

but i would like to throw out (and i think someone else did too) what if it had been a black woman and all white male models and how would the images have had to change to grab our attention/evoke the same pseudo-racial fascination? Could they?

Off the bat I’m thinking of a black woman sitting pretty on top of several (naked and built like Fabio) white men. But the men standing erect, not bowed, and the woman sitting erect also, not draped, a la queen of the world.

Hmm. Racialist stuff in there too. But also not provocative in the same way. Almost automatically the dynamic shifts to a conversation about the men and still not about the woman who would/might be still background.

I don’t know. But someone once told me the difference between pornography and erotic was for you to sit opposite the image and see if you could imagine yourself doing whatever the dominant character was doing to the other person or people in the shot. If you can, it is erotica. If you can’t, its pornography.

If you agree with that, and if the black woman-white men case doesn’t work with the same effectiveness, I guess we should just call it what it is.

Either way, I’m going to vote a nay on this being innocent. I’ll sit in the This is Racism camp today.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶
uu wrote:

I’m curious as to why they didn’t just have 4 muscle bound tanned white men in the photos instead of black men?

Posted 06 May 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

To [Dave]:
“So the question, and I think Racialicous dug in with Ciara/JT video discussiondiscussion, is whether something can be cool fetish art even when its racist. And that’s kind of a can of worms.”

Black people are naturally turned off to racism because it conjures thoughts of anxiety, oppression, painful history, stripped humanity and this generally leaves no room to reflect on any artistic dimensions of anything racist. I think that everyone else needs to be conditioned to feel as bitterly about racism. If this is the case you will see that the question above has a very clear answer.

Consider also the infinite possibilites of creative cool fetish art (for those so inclined) that does not involve racism. Why insist on the one aspect that continues to pick on an open wound for a whole culture of people???

Posted 06 May 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:

Yes it’s racist. The choice of using Black men of the darker skin shade to juxtapose against Giselle and the sexual nature of the poses as well as showing the men by the body parts “others” them and elevates her status. This is sooo tired!

Posted 06 May 2009 at 4:47 pm ¶
Persephone wrote:

I feel like these types of pictures would be so much less problematic if they ever showed people smiling. Does anyone else feel the same way? Like it it was a bunch of people of different races having fun sexy times together, instead of engaged in some kind of angst-ridden power struggle?

Posted 06 May 2009 at 5:03 pm ¶
Hazel wrote:

This REALLY pisses me OFFF!… Really??? Are we SO OVER the stigma of white women & black men that this is now sexy??? Oh God!…of course what is ’sexy’ without black rough hands clawing at a white woman’s face??? and then we have the mob of black men holding her from one end to another!!! and LETS not leave behind her being CARRIED off to God knows where! This is infuriating beyond words.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 5:42 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:

@9jah: I don’t think I disagree with what you’re saying. I was trying to reference un-racist people who have racist “fetishes” or fantasies. There was a post on here awhile back about a black friend of the writer who was into slave scenarios in the bedroom. If that friend had been the photographer of the above photo shoot, would that change the context? I think in some ways no, in some ways yes.

The Ciara/JT post looked at this as well, and I think broadened the discussion. Part of being sex-positive, for me, is about less shame. I don’t like the idea that any black folks who profess to enjoy playing the submissive in the bedroom should feel shameful. That’s kind of where I was going with that line of thought.

@Persephone: That seems pretty spot on. A big ol’ smile or a chuckle somewhere would definitely defuse some of this. Especially in, say, the third photo.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 6:52 pm ¶
A. wrote:

Gisele – you have fucked up twice.

How about staying out of the ‘Black Male’ department? Seriously, I think her and her photographers need to get a clue that black men don’t exist as her own personal slaves and toys. Really, does she think that parading herself around these “animalistic” black men is going to make her anymore desirable?

(And I say animalistic with sarcasm).

Honestly, I’m so fucking sick of this woman. Someone let me know when she drops off of the face of the Earth.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 6:56 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:

I saw the whole set about a week ago, and strictly from an artists standpoint, the thing I most appreciate is that in the majority of the pictures the faces of the men can clearly be seen. Here, it seems like the men are given equal billing instead of just fading into the background. I don’t think these pictures would have worked as well if the men were White, or if Chanel Iman were teamed with this men.

I also think that if this were a photoshoot of Chanel Iman with a bunch of hot buff White guys there would be similar complaints, simply because Americans will always attach some sort of meanings to these sort of images due to the history here.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 7:06 pm ¶
AO wrote:

To be honest, I don’t think you ever would see a photo shoot where they had a white man surrounded by black women or even a black woman surrounded by white men. So the debate about that would be a moot point because it’s would never happen.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 8:53 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

Re: Nudity

I think the reason she isn’t nude is because these ads are likely being used in a campaign that CAN’T depict nudity. Yes, the man are (or appear to be) fully naked, but their privates are cloked in shadow or otherwise hidden from view. That would not be possible with the female model in most of the shots. There are obviously plenty of creative ways that they could have adjusted her pose so she could be naked but covered up, but without knowing the intent of the photos commercially, it is hard to say that these poses would have served that purpose.

This is not dismissing many of the issues that people have brought up. I am not even sure of my own opinion of it, as each great point in the comments sways me towards it. But, I thought it was worth pointing out that the nudity/non-nudity issue may have been more of a practical decision than anything out. MAY have been…

Posted 06 May 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶
Lauren O wrote:

Bagelsan @#12, you just made me laugh so hard I had to step away from the computer.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 9:44 pm ¶
americanWoman. wrote:

this is so unfortunate.

my conclusion: basically its extremely racist, degrading, i admire risque “pushing the limit” type photos, but this?… im SO over it: “the animalistic black man and the pure white woman” it is SO played and im tired of it being exploited, its at the expense of people of color, and its in extremely poor taste and its bad imagery for everyone of every race and every age.

a photograph should make you think, it should make you look twice and maybe even question your thoughts and beliefs it should go deeper than what you see and perhaps even knock the cliche’s out the door…

but this…

this certainly will make some look twice, but its 2009 we’re beyond this… Obama is in the white house for pete’s sake. how long will this continue?

these photos will make people talk, but they Give us Nothing, they give us Nothing new. its bad taste…

now if it was opposite, a black woman with white men … that would make people think different and question what the photographer was trying to portray it would make us think higher and revisit the tabooed concept of the “white man and black woman”– thats progressive in many aspects and will open clearer, realer, needed dialouges, but the black man and white woman??? its plaaaaayed.

and thats all there is to it.
these photos are, as the gays say, LATE

Posted 06 May 2009 at 9:47 pm ¶
Darcy wrote:

is the first picture a reference to another picture? it’s a really really familiar image to me…

Posted 06 May 2009 at 9:52 pm ¶
AjDOW wrote:

honestly,
this just screams sex to me. And I loves it!!!!!

Posted 06 May 2009 at 10:21 pm ¶
bladefruit wrote:

Hmm…the group shot definitely has some racist overtones to me–black men bent over, working to “support” a white woman on their shoulders…and I do find it rather sad that the black/white contrast is still considered so “edgy” that it keeps cropping up again and again. That being said, the remaining shots don’t strike me as especially racist/sexist. I see sex being used to play up a concept; race being used to hold an audience’s attention, and attempts at artistic expression. Meh…

What’s more disturbing to me is the person quoted in the blog. Unless the person was being sarcastic, does he really believe discussion of race and sex when it comes to white women/black men is going to be about a) slavery or b) rape?? There really can’t be a non-fetishized, consensual, positive sexual dynamic between both sides? This shows more unresolved racism in the viewer than the image itself, imho.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 10:33 pm ¶
Dane wrote:

I miss out on a lot of racial undertones and sublety that others see, I suspect. I didn’t see anything except an artful use of color contrast in the first pic. The questionably missing pants on the male models–stands out as strange and is very suspect. I do agree that white womanhood is considered ideal, as black manhood is considered the ideal. I didn’t get an icky feeling from the photos but I didn’t have any strong reaction to them negative or positive. I also didn’t get the King Kong vibe from the Lebron shoot… so maybe I’m just not bringing that to the table.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 11:10 pm ¶
TenaciousRei wrote:

Tipster Butterflyrei here! I saw that post and my first thought was to tell Racialicious.

After getting over the male eye candy I felt extremely uncomfortable and then the comments sent me into a rage. I think the whole thing, while beautiful, is racist.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 11:34 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:

I get what everyone else is saying, although I did not think about black men=rapist. When I saw the pictures, the first thing I thought was “Wow, those men have amazing bodies.” My second thought was “it’s nice to see men’s bodies portrayed in a beautiful way.” Overall, I like the photos, particularly the second one. As long as we’re all playing mind-reader, maybe the photographer wanted colors that contrasted and thought about the racial/racist undertones but did not want the work to be compromised because of it. I consider myself pretty forward thinking when it comes to racial issues, but I certainly would not change any artwork of mine to spare people’s sensibilities.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 11:41 pm ¶
April wrote:

What is with Gisele and this type of imagery? I am really becoming annoyed with this type of photo commentary. As some one said before, if she (or the photographer) have something to say…then say it.

However this looks like a joke and I am not laughing.

Posted 06 May 2009 at 11:42 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

Huh. It’s not often there’s a post I can respond to as an anti-racist activist AND artist but: Speaking as a photographer, I think the underlying concept of this series–the contrast between male/female, hard/soft and black/white– is weak on both counts. In anti-racist terms I cosign many of the objections to these images… and the art part of my brain, which I can never turn off, keeps chiming in, “these are mediocre pictures in any case.”

My amoral art-brain is offended by the notion that I am being exposed to racist imagery in the service of such corny photographs. In other words, if you are gonna go there then at least gimme something to look at. (I am thinking here of Jean-Paul Goude’s images of black women in general and Grace Jones in particular. Or Leni Reifenstahl’s pictures of African men). I’m actually kind of surprised to read that some folks think these pictures are sexy, because they seem really neutered to me. Everyone, including Giselle seems like an object and not a person here. So for me, these come off more like landscapes than any sort of portrait. But I guess sex is in the eye of the beholder…

Again, speaking as an artist, I think the first photograph, with the hands on Giselle’s face, is the most successful image because it is the most ambiguous. The presence of the expensive ring on one of the black fingers–the only “fashion” that is modeled in this image– indicates that the black hands belong there. Whereas Giselle, the famous white model, is actually a backdrop to its display. So even though Giselle’s face is at the center the picture is an inversion of the dynamic in the other photos where black bodies are just background. He white face, which is being cupped, probed, and caressed, provides the contrasting image, not the other way around.

For whatever its worth I think Persephone’s suggestion (#50) that a smile would change the racial dynamics here would also make these images more aesthetically interesting. As would Kismet’s description (#46) of an alternate approach to the same shoot. You guys should both have been styling this shoot.

People have asked why Black men? And I think the answer is: without gesturing toward a history of racist imagery these photographs are so mediocre that they would practically cease to exist. Without the taboo charge of naked black bodies to prop them up… there is no there there.

In other words: the thing that makes them racist also makes the unsuccessful images.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:15 am ¶
michael wrote:

I knew as soon as I saw these amazingly beautiful images, that this blog would immediately project all sorts of dire racism into the pics. The contrasts between their skin tones is of course purposeful, so in a superficial sense, there are racial undertones. Seeing them as racist, is purely in the eye of the viewer imo.

Her last “ape” cover with Lebron James was more clearly in the racist category…whether intentional or not. In these images, there is no violence or threat that I can see, but rather desire. Why do so many black women seemingly tie their self worth to whether a black man is with a white woman? Some of the negative comments here, and in the Justin/Ciara thread are just ridiculous and sad.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:19 am ¶
Arabi wrote:

I agree Michael.
I think the interpretations of the photo shoot say more about the individuals making them than the actual pictures.
So photos of black men with a white woman are automatically racist?
Because if there is the presence of persons of color the context is always race?
That’s sad. It’s sad how WE ourselves racialize images. The artist doesn’t racialize anything, it is we the audience who do so.
There is nothing inherently racial/racist about these photos. It is only in our own minds that we make those distinctions.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:41 am ¶
Kitten wrote:

wow. photos like theses always make me feel uneasy. its not just simple “fashion photography” there is a lot going on in these photos which seem to scream at me without the use of audible words. maybe some people are unable to see it, but the message is clear: the black body is to be exploited. the black men in their nakedness lose their humanity and become at times animal, and at others just objects. the last photo bothers me the least. it actually resembles human to human emotion and response. maybe because the black male seems to step out of the shadows of the background and the expression on his face, although a bit puzzling is not of one who is being exploited, but of power

Posted 07 May 2009 at 1:20 am ¶
foshothoyo wrote:

@ Michael and Arabi:

*pats them on the head*

you’re absolutely right. there’s no chicken and egg problem here. just forget about the baaad racist people with all of their big words and talky-talking. Here’s your binkies! Nighty-night.

*rolls eyes*

Posted 07 May 2009 at 1:56 am ¶
mr guy wrote:

I’m a black male myself and be honest, I’m more uncomfortable with a few the the comments expressed(even if some of them are well meaning) here and at jezebel, then the actual photos.But hey anytime black and white people of the opposite sex are together, and in a intimate pose, it always gets an intense reaction some way or the other.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 2:35 am ¶
rebecca walker wrote:

how about an ironic reading: white woman as black man’s burden.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 2:42 am ¶
Ishtar wrote:

When I saw the photos I didn’t think in terms of race but in terms of beauty – all the models are beautiful.

I agree that it would’ve been better if she was naked too. It just seems to make more sense.

But everyone’s views are really interesting and informative and it’s good to see media images being analysed so thoughtfully.

However, my entirely emotional and untrained response is: I like the photographs. I see strength, grace and beauty.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 4:19 am ¶
Tony Figueroa wrote:

I can’t speak for the intent of the photographer or the person or persons who came up with this idea. However, I definitely think that there is a racist aspect to these photos. What I get out of looking at these pics is that theWhite Woman is to be regarded as a divine object of worship. The pics clearly illustrate a superior/subordinate relationship between Giselle and the Black Men. I’m not a Black Man but the pics bother me. Why not have these Men portraying academics, heroes or scientists? Instead we get this. Sad.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:01 am ¶
Shelby wrote:

RainaWeather said…”As long as we’re all playing mind-reader, maybe the photographer wanted colors that contrasted and thought about the racial/racist undertones but did not want the work to be compromised because of it.”

Actually, many people here AREN’T trying to be mind readers. We don’t really care about intent. It doesn’t matter whether or not the artist was trying to be racist, just that the end product IS racist. Now, a few people raised the point that the fashion industry does these things on purpose to create a “buzz.” But whether or not that was the case, the images are still racist. And we can (and should) evaluate the photos without ever knowing or caring about the creator’s intent.

For reference, see Jay Smooth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
(sorry if someone’s linked him already)

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:46 am ¶
Nacey wrote:

Definitely racist. The men are either a backdrop or furniture. A counterpoint to her whiteness and no more. And when they aren’t, it’s that one photo where the guy is hauling her away over his shoulder like some cave-man. Insulting all around!

Posted 07 May 2009 at 9:08 am ¶
Christie wrote:

I like the final photo (the closeup where you can see the two models’ faces), but the others seem very dehumanizing of the black models. Something about the combination of their faces not showing, while hers does, and the lack of clothing, and the fact that there are several of them, and that they are deliberately photographed and clothed (rather, unclothed) in such a way as to make them seem like a “mass” of similar people who are “doing something” to her.

As far as the photo where the one man is carrying Giselle, I think it definitely has a tone of “savage is carrying away white girl” – some of it is simply due to the objective facts of his lack of clothing and lack of personalizing features (face, etc.), and partly it is the playing off of the prejudices of the (average) viewer, since it is still more controversial/striking to many people to show a very buff (naked) black man carrying a white woman away, rather than a very buff (naked) white man carrying a white woman away.

So, I don’t particularly like the images which are clearly playing on racism and dehumanization to up their impact, but do like the last one, where the two models are given much more equal treatment.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 9:17 am ¶
Jennifer wrote:

“Why do so many black women seemingly tie their self worth to whether a black man is with a white woman? ” How did this get brought up in this conversation? I didn’t see anybody bringing up black womens’ issues with black men and white women together. That is not the point. I believe people were discussing what the photographs are trying to convey and whether the art itself accomplishes that. Or whatever. I am NOT for the record an art major. But I do have a master’s degree in English and I will tell what…in literature it is not the author’s intent you study….it’s the TEXT…and how what the work of art itself translates….the author could have all the good intentions in the world but if they create a work that is problematic then it is important to understand and study what is going on in the piece. As I think is the case here. Whoever took these pictures and what kind of effect or story they were telling is no longer the point. Once art is created how it is consumed and interpreted is usually what matters and what scholars study. The reaction of the people who encounter it, the impact it has on society, the level of catharsis it allows the person engaged with the piece to have. Now I am not saying how a person should FEEL about these photographs or any form of art or literature in general. As someone who has engaged in critiquing literature and to some degree, different forms of art, what fascinates me is the impact it makes, the reactions people have to it. And what is problematic for me is that I do not think these pictures bring anything new to the table, they don’t challenge your assumptions about what you are seeing….There is nothing new to see here. Maybe the last picture is doing something a lil’ different but then, probably not. That comment that was posted at the top about “are they her slaves or are they raping her” was enough to raise my hackles. Obviously, the photographs are not doing anything that challenging or new or fascinating if that’s where the mind goes. And trust me, that’s where a lot of people’s minds are gonna go. Now does that speak to the inherent racism in people…yessssss….but a truly interesting work of art would have made you question those assumptions and made it a lot HARDER for people to just arrive at that assessment. So I guess that’s where I’m at….bored because these pictures, however technically beautiful or whatever the photographer’s noble intent, do not do enough to challenge our perceived notions of black male and white female interaction…period….I mean you have a big buff black man and a thin conventionally beautiful white woman and THIS is what you come up with? It’s too easy…..What a bout a curvy white woman and a thin black guy….and the black guys don’t look like they are running off with her….and they are looking each other in the face….or they are both clothed but in interesting clothing…or something….but these pictures are not.that.creative….sorry….Or you could just read Joseph’s comments cause I believe he said it way better than I ever could. Also, feministe has some really good and interesting perspectives as to why the photographs are a fail….And to anyone who says we are attributing our “American racial biases” to these photographs and we need to relax and we will always see something in pictures where there is a black man and a white woman blah blah blah…I believe the person who took these photographs is Norwegian…cuz you know Europeans don’t have ANY racial baggage….Heavy ass sigh….

Posted 07 May 2009 at 9:43 am ¶
Jennifer wrote:

@Shelby THANK YOU….you think you could say that again for the noseblood sections and the cheap seats in the back? If I would have seen your comment, I probably wouldn’t have posted…but it’s nice to know that I’m not crazy and somebody gets it.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 9:54 am ¶
Alston wrote:

The guy on the right in the second photo is a fucking monster; that is, his physique is monstrous. Wow.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 11:19 am ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:

My thoughts… The fashion world is notoriously clueless when it comes to issues of race and gender. There is a sort of clueless liberal racism and sexism inherent in much of it’s imagery. Photographers and models often say things like, “it’s about contrast,” our it’s about “sexiness.” This might be all well and good if we didn’t live in a nation (and world) with such a complex and brutal history of objectification and dehumanization in regards to people of color and women. But the liberal racist doesn’t see this. He or she is too busy patting themselves on the back for being “daring” enough to feature black models.

It is very telling that the first commenter couldn’t “tell if the guys are her slaves or if they’re raping her.” But I think the commenter was reading too much into the intent of the photo shoot in thinking that the photographer was trying to spark a dialogue about race. I’m an artist who tackles race issues in my work, and one of my biggest frustrations is when uniformed “artists” put out thoughtless or overtly racist (like the “Obama is my Slave” T-shirt guy) material and defend it by merely stating that “it’s art.” The fashion world is very shallow and I’d be willing to bet that the photographer in this case is not very informed about the history of racism and slavery and the dynamics of dehumanization therein which his imagery brings to mind.

When my daughter gets older, best believe, I will make sure that she knows that the fashion world is an ugly fantasy world that promotes a very limited scope of beauty standards.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 11:20 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

reading all these comments were VERY interesting… now I see those photos in a different way…

you know, why don’t they get a BLACK woman surrounded by naked white guys?

Posted 07 May 2009 at 11:56 am ¶
c.n.edaw wrote:

@ Michael

Why is it if a black woman states that they have a problem being continually subjected to the same cliche, formulaic, and ultimately racist personification of the white feminine ideal then we are” low self esteem black women who hava
problem with black men and white women”?

Why is it black women just must ALWAYS just endure whatever is thrown in front of us , to the point that we cannot even have an opinion without it somehow being indicative of our own shortcomings or alleged bias?

Puhleeze. You apply that same standard to black men and the stereotypical racial images they are subjected to that we also hear about ad nauseum that are direclty or indirectly responsible for a litany of social ills (or at least routinely given as excuses for them) and THEN we’ll talk. I think your statement says more about how you view black women than it does about how I (or any other black woman who raises the question) does about interracial pairings–which I have already stated I have no general problem with and am a part of myself, but of course as a typical low self esteem black woman that can’t possibly be true can it? (all sarcasm intended)

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:41 pm ¶
CrzyCatDC wrote:

@Arabi

Actually artists are people just like US and they do project their views onto their work (just like us!)…that’s the whole reason they’re making it!

@rebecca walker
“white woman as black man’s burden”

love the interpretation

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:

Nothing new or cutting edge here. A much more subversive image would have been of a gorgeous, well built, dark-skinned Black female with a bunch of gorgeous, well-built, dark-skinned Black men.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶
michael wrote:

Like I said, people are projecting their own hangups, and insecurities onto these pictures. The only thing racist and demeaning in these images, rests solely in the eye of the beholder.

This is a fashion spread and nothing more. The editors and photographers were not sitting in a room discussing ways to humiliate insecure black women, or dehumanize black men.

Mod Note – It appears you are missing the point of this conversation and this website. I suggest you go look up some of the other deconstructions we have done on fashion spreads because it’s never as simplistic as it appears. You have a right to your opinion that the image is an image, but your opinion is starting to sound uninformed. – LDP

Posted 07 May 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶
urbanpartner wrote:

The hell with Gisele – she’s blocking my viewof the brothers!

Posted 07 May 2009 at 3:11 pm ¶
MsBlenkins wrote:

@Arabi #68: “So photos of black men with a white woman are automatically racist?”
Who, exactly, is saying this? Nobody has claimed that all photos of black men and white women are racist. We are discussing the racial implications of this particular set of photos. If you don’t think they have racist connotations, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t toss around blanket accusations of hand-wringing. This set of photos? Makes me feel uneasy. My Facebook profile pic of white female me and my black male partner? Does not. Please don’t insult those of us who are made uncomfortable by the undertones of these pictures by assuming that we are incapable of understanding context.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 3:48 pm ¶
Angela O wrote:

okay, so the main vibe i get from this is the hypersexualization of the black male. it feels a little fetishy to me, kinda like gisele bundchen wants to be heidi klum (re: Seal) and a muscly black man is her private fantasy. that makes me a little uncomfortable. i feel that they’re exoticizing black skin, making it the object of someone’s sexual fantasy.

also, the premise makes me uncomfortable too. the point was to show contrast between black and white skin, but in that, it carries the subversive message that white skin is better than black skin. here gisele’s paleness is being glorified by being placed on a background of black skin. and the reason this message comes out is because you’d never see naomi campbell surrounded by muscly white men. if this image of gisele existed alongside a similar image of naomi campbell, then the racial tensions would be a lot less, because both women would be in the same position, and there would be less of a feeling of glorifying one skin color while exotifying another.

i wonder how men feel about this, because this image carries implications for men as well as women. the male models are being portrayed as the alpha male, the perfect sexual being. so they’re at one end of the spectrum as sex gods, and at the other end of the spectrum you have… skinny white men? asian men? as the least sexual beings.

the sad thing is that a picture like this can never not be racially charged, whether that was the intention or not. the history of the world is such that race will be an issue for a very, very long time to come. so much for a “post-racial” era, right?

(sorry if this analysis is not very lucid – i have a cold so my brain’s all jumbled up)

Posted 07 May 2009 at 4:52 pm ¶
Mr. Noface wrote:

Astheticly this is breathtakingly beautiful and bold, but I am well aware of the racial undertones that accompany this series of photos. Indeed, almost immediately after noticing and admiring the striking contrast, I too wondered to myself why the all the BLACK men were naked and Gisele was not. Everyone is going to see this through their own lens colored by their own experiences (I certainly did). Does that make the photos inherently racist? I’m not so quick to say yes.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 5:11 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:

@ Shelby “Actually, many people here AREN’T trying to be mind readers.”

I disagree. And on top of that, almost everyone here is putting their own personal feelings into their discussion of the photos while pretending to be objective.

“We don’t really care about intent. It doesn’t matter whether or not the artist was trying to be racist, just that the end product IS racist. ”

Something is not racist simply because YOU interpret it as such. How can you call a photo racist without knowing the artist’s intent? Is not the artist’s intent what determines whether or not it is racist? A photo by itself, with no background, is not racist.

@ Mr. Noface, thank you. I agree.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶
c.n.edaw wrote:

I agree with Mr. Noface to a point. However, artists usually mean for and know that their work will be interpreted by others.

And when you use what is typically viewed as racially charged imagery, you have to assume that people will interpret it through that lens even if it were not the intent.

Then it becomes a question of whether my intent as an artist is clear? Did the artist mean for it to be? Or is it intentionally vague…which might lend itself to a broader intent than any of us assumes.

Or even more simply put— just because I don’t mean or INTEND for something to be viewed as racist does it THEN mean that it’s not, even if most people interpret it as such?
If that’s the case a hella lot of celebrities and newscasters, etc are owed their jobs /careers back!

All good questions that probably none of us can answer, but I still think it would be naive to deny that there are racial overtones aplenty ,even if we don’t necessarily categorize it as racist.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 5:56 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:

@ [dave] (#15): Your analysis was very insightful!

@ macon d:

Attention-getting rather than anti-racist.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting that those pictures were anti-racist?

@ Medea & lizriz: In the first picture, there is a finger pressed into her mouth. It could only be interpreted as healing/caressing if you ignored that part.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 6:04 pm ¶
Ward Coleman wrote:

How many more decades have we got to spend pretending that this hoary old stereotype is dangerous, cutting edge and new?.

Most of the first night audience at “Guess who’s coming to Dinner” died quietly in rest homes years ago. The Black dude / white chick combo is becoming a huge yawn. This has been done a million times, and it is just not sexy any more.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 6:36 pm ¶
Arabi wrote:

If one sees a picture of naked black men with a white women and think:
racism
beast
savage
primitive
monster
You have issues NOT the artist. Yep, the artist is a person but we the viewers, interpret and configure meaning. We are the ones that determine the implications of any piece of art.
People here should turn upon themselves and reflect on why these images conjure up all the daemons of “black male savagery” within rather than accusing the artist of racism.
Art is polysemic. However, whenever we decide on a particular meaning we are instantiating some discourse or figuration of thought that we ourselves have internalized and informs our reaction to particular stimuli.
We are responsible for these thoughts not the artist.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 7:43 pm ¶
untitleme61 wrote:

As a black woman I wasn’t offended, uncomfortable, or annoyed by the pics…but Ill betcha anything the brothers didn’t get paid as much as she did. I wonder what Tom Brady will think when his teammates start poking fun at him…

“Yo TB..tell Gisele I’d rather carry her than your football”..!!

Posted 07 May 2009 at 7:57 pm ¶
jane wrote:

I don’t see any racist undertones to these photos. I see a beautiful woman and several beautiful men. I wish we could just look at this and not read between none existent lines. Do you really believe that Gisele would give up a very lucrative career for a photograph if she truly felt it was racist? Also, do you think these black men are so desperate for money and work that they would pose for a photograph that cast them as slaves or rapists? This is art, maybe you don’t like it or appreciate it, but to accuse everybody involved of being a racist is unfair.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:10 pm ¶
jane wrote:

Another point, if we are going to over think this, why isn’t this a feminist issue, this man has her thrown over his shoulder in on of the photos. One could also read the last photo as the woman being rejected by the man, she has her arms wrapped around him and he is looking straight faced and uncaring. If it was a white man in the photo would it be a feminist issue, and does that mean that “black” trumps “female” on the discrimination list?

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:21 pm ¶
MelMel wrote:

Jaden: Exactly what I was going to say. Clothing/Nudity contrasts indicate power. If you watch period films, slaves are always nude. If you look at ads with a white man and a white woman, the man always has more clothing. So why, with a white woman and a Black man, is the power structure switched? That’s really the only issue I have with this set. The one with the hands is lovely.

I see no “rape” undertones here. I’d have to look pretty hard to find it, especially given the clothing thing, again. It’s all about power.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:22 pm ¶
Medusa wrote:

WTF? Why are there so many people on this thread saying that anyone who reads anything racist in this is projecting our own issues? It’s not like this photo shoot happened in a magical world without historical context. This evokes thoughts of racism because well…the imagery is racist.

Re: Switching out the races of the models….I agree with the commenter that said four black women + one white man would also be problematic. The only races that would work would be ones that have no horrible history of rape or stereotypes of men being rapists of the women….1 black woman and 4 Asian men 4 black men and 1 Asian or something because there’s no history of Asians owning (and abusing) blacks or vice versa….

Posted 07 May 2009 at 8:39 pm ¶
A. wrote:

Seriously, folks in this comment section.

Have we not learned about that “If you see racism, that means you’re racist” statement.

Guess what, folks, ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM. Also see – the coffeeandink entry about denying racism in art and popular culture.

Posted 07 May 2009 at 9:06 pm ¶
NINA wrote:

i dont know what to thing
but i know that no matter what we would complain

if there were no black men with white women we would say that society cant tolerate a black man and a white woman and that black men arent seen as desirable

if they were all black then we would complain that black women arent seen as being desireable by nonblack men

if they were all white then we’d complain that there are no people of color

if they were all black then we would complain that black women arent seen as being desireable by nonblack men

if she were black and they were white we’d complain that it smacks of white male dominance. white men gang banging the black chidk OR that it perpetuates the hypersexual image of black women who exist to serve white men (depending on how pleased or pained she looks)
AND that black men arent seen as good enough to partner with beautiful black women( like the Princess and the Frog)

if the men were asian, then its colonial coolie imagery
if she were asian and they were white, its oriental geisha fetishism

if she were naked and they were clothed then the woman is the object as usual and being ravished by black men

if they are naked, then they are dehumanized.

GAH

really, what would work?

Posted 07 May 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶
Sonic wrote:

To be honest, I didn’t feel there was anything racist about these photos. I think they are just beautiful photos and highlight Giselle’s attire. I do think people who see underlying racist tones have valid reasons for seeing them, but I don’t see it myself. I think that black men were chosen because their skin makes a great highlight for Giselle, who is the model featured here. And that might explain why they are more in the background than she is. As to why she is clothed and they aren’t, my first thought was that this was one way of heavily emphasizing what Giselle is wearing, which is what I assumed the photos are trying to do.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 12:17 am ¶
foshothoyo wrote:

this purposely sensationalized fetish-esque art-trash-writ-large should really not be getting so much attention.

i despise it so much, i am going to purposely forget the name of the privileged hack that made it.

what was the name again…oh, hm, um…

it started with a T…trivial? no. trifling? no. terrible? getting closer…

Posted 08 May 2009 at 1:09 am ¶
Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:

The very first thing that comes to mind (not reading the whole thread, so I don’t see everyone else’s responses yet)?

First photo: Color contrast, nice framing, odd pose, why so many hands on one face? Feel sort of neutral about it.

Fourth photo: Cool, sexy. Buff man, woman who gets to be active and sensual, not just passively inviting the Gaze. I like it.

But …

Middle two photos: OK, the guys are still nice and buff, and might be sexy in some other photo, but the poses feel icky. Naked black guys with faces not visible carrying pretty clothed white woman? Feels like slave imagery to me.

So, I’d like the fourth photo just fine if I got to see it without the rest of the set, but the set as a whole, not so much.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 3:30 am ¶
leonardo sousa wrote:

GreaT!!! Fantastic ShoT´s… Marvells Pictures Black or White,

ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM
ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM
ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM
ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM
ART DOES CONTAIN RACISM

Posted 08 May 2009 at 9:47 am ¶
Natalie wrote:

I do think the pictures are beautiful, but I also think that’s irrelevant.

The pictures objectify two commonly objectified bodies: white women and black men. Both are seen as sexually in constant states of sexual availability for different reason. Women are seen as sexual receptacles because the body is “available” for intercourse at all times, while black men are seen as being basically breeding studs, indiscriminate. That’s what makes this image shout “sex!” to the viewer, but it’s empty of critique. As said above it’s not anti-racist, so it’s just part of the same old racism and sexism slurry.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 11:28 am ¶
Sarah Davies wrote:

As someone said earlier this has been so many times that it no longer has anything to contribute.

Until the unlikely event that an artist has the courage to depict a white man and a Muslim woman in similar poses, this subject is about as innovative as a kitten is on a box of candy

Posted 08 May 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶
Emmy wrote:

In my completely uninformed and subjectively-correct opinion, I agree with the quote in the original post.

The very first picture is quite sexy, and suggests the woman in a position of queenly devotion… Which does hint at “black male slave studs”. (To my eye it’s not hugely over the top, especially because of the presence of the large jewelry empowering the male hands.)

But the one with them all carrying her off? I expect that’s mostly sexy to people with heavy rape fantasies. It doesn’t look very rape-oriented to me but it DOES look like the woman is just a piece of furniture or a statue, carried around by her movers. Not something I’d want to display in my house!

The picture with her flung over his shoulder shows off a gorgeous thigh, but suggests ‘caveman carrying woman off for sex’… while at the same time, making it clear that it’s HER fantasy. His face is completely hidden, and she certainly doesn’t appear displeased by things. He is not an actor in events, he is the Big Black Man ’she’ dreams about. I know people who would go absolutely mad for this imagery.

I actually find the last picture here the most boring. There’s no sign of connection between the models. I don’t feel like she wants *him*, but what he represents… and that’s not very sexy.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 4:00 pm ¶
Jedi wrote:

I imagine that this is largely a career move for the photographer. He knew that something like this would be racy enough to create “controversy” and get attention, but still acceptable enough so as not to backfire on him.

I doubt most native Africans eat well enough to build a physique like that. Only in White-dominated countries is this able to happen.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶
Safiya Outlines wrote:

“I doubt most native Africans eat well enough to build a physique like that. Only in White-dominated countries is this able to happen.”

Yes, and most “native Africans” would be covered in flies too. /sarcasm.

Jed, your comment has got to be the most racist I’ve seen on Racialicious for quite some time.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 6:58 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

@ Jedi:

I concur with Safiyah Outlines.

Plus, have you ever seen the actors of Bollywood? India is definitely not a White dominated country and many of those guys are super buff! And quite yummy. In fact, in all of South Asia its very common for guys to build their bodies.

Why am I even saying this? One would think this was understood.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
wonder wrote:

well, the first shot looks like they were going for the image out of Watchmen where Dr Manhattan upsets Laurie by duplicating himself while they’re making love…….

Posted 08 May 2009 at 8:05 pm ¶
wonder wrote:

which was really creepy

Posted 08 May 2009 at 8:06 pm ¶
dolia wrote:

I really hate all of these images. Not even for their racia overtones, I just find it disturbing and saddening that the model is the subject and the men in the photo just so much furniture. It isn’t a photograph of them as people, and that’s so backward and arrogant an attitude for any photographer to have to a human being.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 9:00 pm ¶
vodalus wrote:

It’s racist. All sorts of King Kong.

But one thing I do like about using men with such dark skin is that it allowed them to be posed almost naturally, using shadows and contrast to hide “the naughty bits”. Ok, and I think that the contrast between the shine and shadows on them to be incredibly striking. More of that kind of contrast, less of the kind loaded with 200 years of sexual fear!

I think part of the reason this is a bit sexy is the way that full-frontal nudity is hinted at without being exposed. Even that ugly bathing suit is intended to highlight that her naked body is under it and only a slightly different color.

If I had one wish about these images, it would be to see a very dark black woman (in a swimsuit) instead. Of course, that would veer into exoticism as opposed to slavery/rape dynamics, but it would be nice to see a dark-skinned black woman being treated as a sexual ideal. Adding in the interracial aspect, regardless of the gender, alludes to too much to the muddied relationship of race, sex and violence in the US. It is simply too evocative of negative things.

Posted 08 May 2009 at 10:38 pm ¶
io wrote:

I find these pictures frustrating: I agree with the other comments about why the photos are problematic. On the other hand, I feel like 3 of the 4 are *so close* to being beautiful and interesting without some of the issues raised.

1. In the first photo, leaving the wandering finger out of her mouth would have kept it ambiguous as to sexual vs. supportive/healing imagery.

2. The second photo could have achieved the carrying-her aspect with less of the rape/primitive suggestion by simply making the pose slightly more ballet-like and having at least one of the male models look at the female model — it would make her seem like less of an object to be carried off.

3. I think the third picture was trying to be cute and cheeky (heh, pun intended), by with the king kong imagery, just no.

4. I really like the couple photo. It’s lovely and passionate. It would be nice, though, if the male model had a slight smile on his face or other indication that he’s not passive here.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 1:01 am ¶
Nia wrote:

I have to say that I’m white and I live in a very homogeneous country where black people are a very rare exception.

The first picture suggests to me that black skin is more decorative; it’s acting as a foil for Giselle’s face. Not nice.

The next two are disturbing because they suggest that a whole lot of men are kidnapping her. It looks like the stereotypical “white explorer in Deep Africa taken to the village to be eaten by cannibals”. They’re horrible.

The last one seems disconnected from the rest. Showing desire for people who have taken you by force is creepy. I don’t like that he’s looking at the camera, as if he’s either passive, or showing off for us, or both. It reminds me of pictures of two girls kissing or touching, while looking at the camera, to show off for men. It doesn’t look sexy because it is too posed.

It looks like a jewelry commercial. I’m not an expert but I can think of better ways to show off jewels against white and black skin.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 5:56 am ¶
Nia wrote:

Jedi, in my country there are a few first-generation African immigrants and all the ones I’ve seen are very athletic. Some are leaner and smaller and some are bigger but they all look really muscular and fit.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 6:00 am ¶
Medusa wrote:

What the fuck??? How did that Jedi comment make it past the moderators? You’re absolutely right, Jedi, every fucking black person who grew up in a non-white dominated nation is fucking frail and weak. No wait, no we’re not. YOU FUCK.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
K wrote:

Is nobody familiar with Greek mythology? The rape of Persephone? Helen? Stealing a woman away is sweeping her off her feet, in a very romantic way. I think the reason Gisele is clothed is because otherwise she would be exposing her genitalia and nipples. The men have their genitlia covered, too. Note that her clothing is supposed to look almost nude. If this were to be done with a black woman and white men, the men would have to be tanned and oiled (ask any bodybuilder) and thus, would not have as much contrast. Of course, I welcome it. Anthony and Cleopatra.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶
Chris Diaz wrote:

I think it’s dreadful. What it brings in mind to me is the phenomenon of affluent White women having their little fantasy carnal pleasures with the impoverished “savages”. It’s like a hedonistic form of colonialism. It’s disgusting. I’ve seen it firsthand. I used to live in southern California and we would visit Mexico. You would see some of the little princesses drinking, snorting, and screwing everything in sight. Then, they would come back home and act like good little Christian girls that don’t believe in mixing outside of one’s own race. This is the female version of “The Great White Hunter”.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 1:25 pm ¶
fuzzylogic wrote:

Surprised? No. Tired of these photos? Yes.

I think what many of these reader responses to the photos — as many as i could read — suggest is not whether or not the photo ARE or AREN’T racist, but instead how we all come to see race in this photo is because of existing discourses about blackness, whiteness, and desire that continuously circulate around us. We can’t abstract the meanings we are getting from this photo (i.e. black people are king kong, white women dominate black men) from other places like healthcare, welfare, planned parenthood, foreign policy where meanings attached to differently racialized bodies seek to discipline and manage how these bodies should work. The black brute stereotype people bring up is connected to maintaining slave labor and post WWII/de-industrialization and forms of class conatinment that go with that create a wage-labor class justifiable by these stereotypes.

Whether or not we see race or not is a pointless question because race is everywhere around us at all times as much as we try to deny it. You know, I liken these sort of discussion about representations to the discussion about who can or can’t use the n-word. To me, it’s not about whats the ‘authentic’ way of saying it, but why people DESIRE to say it. Why does a white kid or any Asian kid (many I know) want to say it so bad? It’s by analyzing desire and of course the historical and contemporary power that is bound up in that desire that will hopefully end this nonsense about the n-word. Cultural representations are important to investigate, but the analysis should also extent to the material realm of policy, education, labor, etc. that gives real weight to how these representations continue to exist and manifest in racist ways in our everyday lives. Further, it is here where we can understand people’s desire for these types of images too.

Posted 09 May 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶
coloredhoney wrote:

@PPR_Scribe
i concur! in the first photo the hands seem to me to be caressing and loving. i would love to see a dark skinned black woman in a photo surrounded by beautifully muscular black men looking like she is being carefully and tenderly touched and loved. while it happens in real life, it is a concept of an image rarely seen in popular culture. i think many of the racialized comments stem from a dearth of affirmed attractive physical reflection of black women and men together in a sexy fashion. i do see an attempt in popular media to portray “positive” nuclear family photos of black folks. the obamas being a prime example of this. and barack has gotten the sexy card. but their description as a couple is considered more “wholesome”. oh okay sexy wholesome. i like to see every now and then some unadulterated, ok a little more often than every now and then, some unadulterated sexy funky images of black people. not weaved up on a pole getting booty spanked by lil weezy images. and while i’m sure gisele is good and weaved up, that is not the going assumption when you look at the photos. and weaved up is cool. i just don’t think it should be what seems like a legal requirement for blackgirl sexy in pictures. but really way back somewhere in the comment section someone asked what about all this binary thought and how come the boxes of white, black and straight? how come we’re not imagining an all female shoot, a mix of trans, a mix of hetero, a mix of many races that you would think don’t exist given the repetition of images distributed over the last century and change? i think if we’re not carefully exercising all our creative imaginative muscles we run the risk of intellectually boring ourselves with the very discussions that help us understand dynamics of popular perception, race and hierarchy. er, i do have to say though, just in terms of my own thinking of what i’d like to wake up next to, and any of those fine ass dudes in that photo shoot, fetishized, racialized, or not, will do.

Posted 10 May 2009 at 7:21 am ¶
Noah Gapsis wrote:

This is what these make me think of:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ekrkaufman/du/lebron_as_brute2.jpg

Lotta history here, folks.

Posted 11 May 2009 at 12:07 am ¶
pixilated wrote:

i haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet. first thing that comes to mind is leni riefenstahl. will add more once i’ve had a chance to read others’ posts.

Posted 11 May 2009 at 7:39 am ¶
cat m. wrote:

its interesting how anonymous/interchangeable the male models are.
as in ‘they are all the same’

Posted 11 May 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶
pixilated wrote:

K wrote:
Is nobody familiar with Greek mythology? The rape of Persephone? Helen?

yes, i’m sure many posters and readers are quite well versed in mythology. but interpreting it from that standpoint doesn’t necessarily make it less problematic either – there has been a great deal of discussion within feminist academia of why this is (e.g. romanticising sexual violence against women; and women being objectified as possessions to be passed along from man to man with little agency of their own come to mind just off the top of my head) if you aren’t familiar with this line of discourse i would suggest you look it up – it could be an interesting alternative means of reading the themes presented withing greek mythology for you (or anyone else)

Posted 12 May 2009 at 4:18 am ¶
Jo wrote:

“shot by Norwegian fashion photographer Sølve Sundsbø”.

*Sigh!* I was naively hoping this was solely a Danish fashion, art, photo style in the 21st century. I am so sad and ashamed that it’s not. I’m not black, I’m not white but I am a person of color in a predominately white country where the majority of people don’t care or understand the implications of a photo like this, our jokes, tv-sketches etc.

The first photo provokes the most negative emotions in me. I’m at loss for words for what this makes me feel or why.

So many of the other commenters observations or my own would never occur in the heads of many white Scandinavians and I usually cringe my teeth when someone lumps “us” all into the category of Scandinavians or Europeans but in this case I think it’s fair of me to draw attention to a mindset that I thought was strictly Danish but may also be the mindset of many people in our neighboring Scandivian countries.

There may be white people in the different Scandinavian countries who would make the same observations as a person of color and feel the same way I do but they’re not likely to voice it and if they do, good on them because people here are more likely to listen to another white person on this matter than to a woman of color like myself.

While I’m not for the type of censorship many are trying to impose on us these days I wish some people would exercise some conscientiousness (is that an English word?!)

We currently have a chocolate ad on many Danish women’s magazines with a blacked up (or chocolated up) woman in a wild costume assuming a wild woman pose and for all I can tell she’s a Caucasian woman despite the wild masses of black curls. In any case I feel….uncomfortable about that ad to put it mildly.

We have prominent people of color in the media, mainly entertainment, but also newsreaders and some people of color in politics but not enough to get more white people to see us as other than that exotic dark mass be we of African, South Asian, East Asian, Middle Eastern, or Latin American descent.

Many people of color have been here for generations or are adopted or mixed and even when we see other white Danes with very dark hair and/or brown eyes we wonder where they get them from…implying they have some exotic intermixing in their family. I’m guilty of wondering where my adoptive mother gets her brown eyes from. I don’t wonder in the same way about my adoptive father’s white family members brown eyes.

I don’t know if this cultural experience would be the same in Norway or if anyone else besides myself perceive the ‘people of color’ experience the same way I do. I don’t know any other people of color in this country intimately enough to ask them.

I may be reading too much into this. The top photo doesn’t look loving to me at all. I don’t perceive their hands as caressing. To me it plays on the white fear of being “drowned” by people of color. I see the stereotype off white women as victims to hypersexual men of color.

Posted 14 May 2009 at 6:51 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

@Jo (#129): Have you read Jan Pieterse’s “White on Black: Images of Africans and Blacks in Western Popular Culture”? It’s a really fantastic and comprehensive look at how racist images have been created and perpetuated throughout history. NO country in Europe was exempt from this kind of racism, and these ideas have a tendency, in spite of evidence to the contrary, to never really disappear. They are stereotypes, after all: they don’t exist to reinforce logic; they exist to defy it. You can find the book on Amazon. The link is a review/synopsis:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300050208

Posted 14 May 2009 at 9:07 am ¶
JD wrote:

Also found this relevant:

http://jadesceptre.dreamhost.com/relevant.jpg

Posted 20 May 2009 at 11:28 am ¶
Raf wrote:

The images singularly aren’t racist. HOWEVER, we don’t live in a vacuum. That first response is a prime example that the notion that black men are only slaves or sexual deviants – still persist. Now these images may not be derogatory mintrelesque caricatures- but with the continual equating of blackness with those characteristics for years, caricatures aren’t necessary anymore. While the commenter probably didn’t intend to be such a blaring example of the subtle ways that a lot of people think along racialized lines, it was a “Freudian Slip” of sorts that shows how repeated imagery and subtle (or not so subtle) messages stick in people’s heads. This isn’t so much about any racism at play in this picture, its more about how engrained those concepts are within the average person.

Posted 05 Jun 2009 at 4:27 pm ¶