Trackbacks & Pings

1. Abram Sauer Online » This Thing is Like That Thing: King Kong Edition (UPDATED) on 22 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm

   [...] Great minds think alike faster than others, apparently:  Die Already, King Kong Racism: Lady Gaga Edition [...]

2. Ella Fitzgerald and black girlishness « Feminist Music Geek on 23 Dec 2009 at 6:48 pm

   [...] issues of gender), but I’m white. After Kristen at Act Your Age forwarded a piece from Racialicious on Lady Gaga and whiteness and a repost of AlienatiOn’s essay “What [...]

3. Why do we (me) all begrudginly like Lady Gaga? « Drive, Wayfarer, Drive on 29 Dec 2009 at 9:55 am

   [...] that’s the thing about Lady Gaga. Well, there are a lot of things. Actually, Racialicious had a cool post talking about her (and other) iconography and [...]

Comments

1. n wrote:

   I got the King Kong reference when I saw this, though I actually interpreted the image as Kanye rescuing Gaga. I read him as a soldier, I suppose because it looks like he has fatigues and dog tags.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 10:44 am ¶

2. Tara K. wrote:

   While I’m disgusted by some of these photos, I’m also attracted to some of them. I think it’s entirely possible to applaud the Feministing as well as this one. I’m not sure how to make certain photos defining of her rather than others, especially when I’ve never heard her address the issues.

   If Gaga were to be asked about the racist imagery and claim that she were “post-racial” or some stupid shit like that, I’d let it go and write her off. But as is, I find a lot of her actions interesting and energizing while others are gross and exploitive. But I’d nonetheless like to hear what she has to say about it all and, further, what KANYE has to say about it. And the photographer.

   Kanye West’s attitude and ego have never left me inclined to think that he’s being overruled and abused by anyone, which means that he had an active consenting role in the photo. It is a disturbing image, but he was involved in making it with her, so let’s point the lens around, eh? Even if Kanye appears degraded, Othered, and dehumanized in the photo, it wasn’t without his consent, so let’s spread the accountability, eh?

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:04 am ¶

3. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @Tara K. –

   Kanye gets a big questionable in my book. See here:

   http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/07/the-thin-line-between-art-and-explotation/

   He seems solely attracted to controversial images, but only if those images reinforce dominant structures. But then again, I haven’t paid close attention to his videography, so I’d need to take a look back to be sure. But Kanye’s idea of subversive doesn’t appear to have much of a purpose beyond controversy.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:08 am ¶

4. BSK wrote:

   I don’t really see this as King Kong iconography. I don’t think West is supposed to represent Kong by any means, even if there is a general similarity to the posing of the picture. The caption on the linked site refer to it as a “damsel in distress” image, which is certainly bothersome for a whole other set of reasons. There is nothing to imply that Kanye is kidnapping GaGa, and the exploding volcano in the background does lend itself to her being “saved”.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:11 am ¶

5. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

   like#1, I saw the 1st photo very differently.

   Kanye is dressed like Indiana Jones (sort of) and it seems like he’s SAVING her from distress. or something like that.

   But I get what you mean. I’m really fucking sick of these images of White skinned Blonde women with very dark-skinned black guys. I mean, what a fucking cliche.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:15 am ¶

6. Lola wrote:

   wow I never realized how deliberate that LeBron cover was until I saw that “mad brute” poster.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:22 am ¶

7. Tim Jones-Yelvington wrote:

   I think Gaga is transgressive but not revolutionary… I see hers as a kind-of depoliticized Queer-ish performance that aims to disrupt and unsettle norms, but has zero interest in things like collective liberation or mobilization. I mean… she’s blatantly commercial and self-promoting. Sometimes in a cartoonish, subversive way, but still totally commercial. ….I think she’s interested in any imagery that shocks and disrupts, often with little interest in how or why these images shock and disrupt…. and because of this, frequently reproduces racist, ableist, etc. imagery. I absolutely see how this image is situated in a long history of imagery depicting black men as animalistic.

   That said… I do think there are some qualities specific to this image I’d be interested to see discussed further…. for instance, I feel like there’s some desire in this image… Kanye doesn’t seem monstrous to me so much as… actually kind-of hot. Now I understand fetishizing black men is just as problematic as depicting them as monsters… but I’d be interested to hear, for instance, how Andrea Plaid responds to this image. I also think n’s comment is interesting re: military imagery and Kanye “rescuing” Gaga… if Kanye is rescuing her, does it make him heroic? Is he coopting a usually white-dominated, GI Joe-ish role? Or does it place him a minstrel, servant-ish role, present only to facilitate Gaga’s rescue? And how do we factor in the grossly disproportionate military recruitment from poor communities of color? …Another thing abt this image is it looks to me like rather than being weak, victimized or “rescued,” Gaga is kind-of… vamping. She’s draped across Kanye like he’s furniture, barely acknowledging him… you could totally digitally remove him from this image and it would look exactly the same… how does this further objectify him?

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:26 am ¶

8. Palimpsestine wrote:

   Re Image 1: That’s one ejaculatory volcano. I don’t read it is an ‘actual’ threat so much as a symbol of their shared, destructive lust. (Cuz miscegenation is dangerous, donchakno?) Here’s the thing about the Kong imagery–at various times Kong is a threat, at various times he’s a savior. He’s big and black and primal so he can be all of that. The only constants are blackness v. whiteness and animal masculinity v. pure, sexually vulnerable titian femininity. I think when you set that up, you pretty much have a Kong subtext no matter the particulars.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:40 am ¶

9. shemari wrote:

   When I first saw this image, the thought that came to my mind immediately was that Kanye was a slave kidnapping a White woman. I mean his clothes are almost rags and he’s barefoot. Gaga’s laying in his arms looking pretty, helpless and a little distressed. I don’t see King Kong and I don’t see a rescuer.

   Lady Gaga…I just don’t get the appeal nor the idea that she is subverting anything. I see a performer who’s crafting an image that makes her stand out. Nothing groundbreaking there.

   Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶

10. [dave] wrote:

    Like others, I don’t see this as King Kong symbolism, although I definitely see the worth of comparing the tropes of both. I mean, they’re still doing the beautiful white lady vs. animal magnetism thing. Maybe there’s a touch of subversion in Gaga so clearly finding pleasure in this moment, but I feel like I’m reaching for that one because I appreciate some of her other work/images.

    And yeah maybe I’m being less critical because Kanye looks pretty fine here. I can definitely see the Indiana Jones reading. But the “dead eyes” mentioned by the OP and his barefootedness actually make him look more like a zombie Indiana Jones.

    And the more I look at it, thanks to @Palimpsestine, that really is one ejaculatory volcano.

    Thanks for this post.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶

11. Big Man wrote:

    They gave Kanye ape eyes.

    That’s wild, just wild. I might have thought it was no big deal if not for the eyes.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:46 pm ¶

12. Umm....wut wrote:

    I agree with bnk and dima. This might be a subversion of the king kong trope by juxtaposing it with a damsel in distress/male heroism trope. The article’s critique, I think, is certainly valid and contextual, but it doesn’t explore other interpretations which it kind of screams for when the author brings up “gaganess” (which I think is a brilliant point). Either way, awesome post.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶

13. Val wrote:

    This would have been a really interesting photo if Gaga was holding Kanye in her arms. And it would have made sense considering Gaga’s stage persona and Kanye’s recent problems. As it is tough, it is a big fail.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶

14. Val wrote:

    Dang typos! tough = though

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶

15. A.D.Nix wrote:

    Kanye’s zombie-like gaze looking past/through the audience rather than at the audience with any level of engagement really does make him look like a soulless object. Comparing that to Gaga’s much more engaged and imploring “vamping” leaves me with alot of questions.

    Whether rescuing or absconding, we are supposed to read “he is taking her.” Layer that with the digitally amplified racial difference and who is clothed/unclothed and you have . . . plenty.

    Also: How about that jungle space?

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶

16. Mia wrote:

    I have to agree with Yelvington, in that Gaga is not about equality, or moving in that direction. I think as an artist she likes to have conversations with her work, and most (if not all time) those conversations amount to her saying nothing at all. She’s has about as much depth as a billboard. To talk about her as a profound person is ridiculous.

    It could be said that she is profound in her emptiness, but her constant need to attach herself to all things cultural almost always drives out all content and hope. She seems really interested in dehumanizing culture and attaching herself to that so that she can become apart of it. I find it sad because it only further unburdens her as an artist from feeling anything at all. She isn’t concerned about her product, only the effect it can have on someone. I would compare this to an artist burning crosses in front of POC’s home and asking them to react and calling that art.

    All of the symbols she and LaChapelle put in this work are about impact and are a series of empty experiences; and for the most part I attribute that to her whiteness. She doesn’t want to engage culture because that would require commitment and responsibility to that culture, she is only out to impact.

    I think the same goes for Kanye. He’s very talented, but there’s always been something very strange about him as an artist; and perhaps he participated in this project because he envies that unburdened approach in Gaga. Perhaps he’s out to disconnect from society/culture as a whole. He and lady Gaga are in many ways very much alike in that they are like method actors who become the subject of their own work and contribute nothing towards making cultural history better in any kind of way. Look at what her work is being compared to- ads.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:18 pm ¶

17. Brooke wrote:

    @DIMA – “I’m really fucking sick of these images of White skinned Blonde women with very dark-skinned black guys. I mean, what a fucking cliche.”

    At least with Lady Gaga and Kanye, there’s a reason for pairing them together. They’re friends and collaborators, right? Or maybe would-be collaborators, since their tour never got off the ground. In any case, this image seems different in some way than Gisele being paired with someone she has no connection with (as far as I know – maybe she and Lebron James are unlikely BFFs), or with random black models chosen only for their skin color.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶

18. momo wrote:

    They both look so distant and plastic in that shot, like a blow-up doll in the arms of a mannequin. It looks so artificial, like the result of a silly Photoshop contest. I wouldn’t be surprised if the two of them were Photoshopped together — they have no connection at all.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶

19. Thea wrote:

    I have to agree with Big Man and A.D. Nix that I could believe Kanye was rescuing Gaga, if not for the Zombie look in his eyes. I think the look on his face is very significant.

    Then again, I still might not buy that he is rescuing her. Or if I could buy that he was rescuing her, we’d have to assume he was rescuing her…from his own people. The exploding volcano, his greased up naked chest (are those pecs real?) the palm trees, and fiery fecund landscape all seem to indicate “jungle sexuality”…and that sexuality is what Gaga is defining herself against as white woman in this shot.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶

20. Phil Deeze wrote:

    I think Kanye is poking fun at the asshats that got their panties all in a wad about the Taylor Swift incident.

    Instead of taking the microphone from her and stealing the pretty little white girl’s moment? This photo is showing him taking the pretty naked white girl off the pedestal she was placed on and strolling away with her defiantly.

    Kanye knows he’ll take heat from some black folks on it. But he’s after the ilk of people that sent him the nasty social media after the Taylor Swift thing. And ironically, those folks were playing the “oppression olympics.” Is that anything like the Laff-Olympics, the old Hanna Barbera cartoon show? LOL.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶

21. Jessica wrote:

    I don’t know if it’s me or not but I don’t see a gorilla and think of a black man. Period. I just see an animal. I also don’t find the Gisele and Lebron cover offensive either. Lebron is one (if not the best) athletes on the planet and Gisele is the top model right now. The best of the best is all I see. If the races were switched (bw/ww) I think the pose might have been similar (if not the same).

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶

22. n wrote:

    Let me take a stab at it.How am I reading it? Kanye is some zombified soldier of fortune who has succumbed to the lure of the blonde siren. She wants him and so has placed herself in peril so he can rescue her and he does so blindly because you know, thats what men do.

    Its um, a Venus Flytrap situation. She is taking him by getting him to take her.

    Maybe she represents fame in all it’s plastic fabricated glory and in his quest for it he has risked his safety and well being?

    But I totally read him as the passive one.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶

23. Madams wrote:

    Well, I certainly read this image as being in the vein of the classic King Kong iconography. What has struck me in these more recent episodes is why Kanye, Lebron, etc…accept that portrayl?

    On an aside, while the idealized body fits the classic image, I can never take Lady Gaga’s face seriously…which takes the whole image to an incredibly absurd and cartoonish place. But, that’s just my own LadyGaga-based discomfort.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶

24. DivergentDana wrote:

    “And the photographer. ”

    David LaChappelle has used disturbing racial imagery before. I remember Amanda Lepore saying that he put her in blackface and had her pose with a watermelon.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶

25. bertie wrote:

    I don’t know what to make of this.

    Its interesting because Kanye’s persona is not one of brutish masculinity or overt sexuality. He has a persona of a petulant child. A brat who is incapable of saving or really harming anything (except maybe Taylor Swifts’ AMA moment).

    And Lady Gaga’s persona is not that of a weak or distressed damsel. Although I don’t pay to much attention to her, she seems to have an image of a powerful and enigmatic person.

    Is the artist trying to subvert or ridicule the old trope by using people whose’s personas are opposite of what of the trope requires? Or are Kanye and Gaga’s personas an unintentional commentary on how ridiculous the artist’s reliance on out dated and racist imagery is? I don’t know.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 3:12 pm ¶

26. method wrote:

    As a straight read of the picture, they are emerging out of the jungle with the volcano exploding in the background. Kanye is most likely a US soldier (his clothes are reminiscent of Apocalypse Now) who has gone into the jungle to retrieve Lady Gaga. Now he has this strange look on his face. It could be a thousand-yard stare from his ordeal or he could be transformed in some way (zombie, robot, vampire, etc). The key point is that he is *not* looking at her, this ultimate sex object in his arms. She even seems a bit distressed by this. I really think you have to be projecting your expectations onto the picture to say that she is in danger of being ravaged, which is the essence of the King Kong trope. So, I mean, there’s your subversion, if you want it. The image still has a kind of inhuman/human dimension to it, but it seems Kanye is attracted to the idea of himself as superhuman/inhuman. The relevant visual reference may actually be Frankenstein’s monster, who isn’t really sexual.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶

27. Andrea Plaid wrote:

    @Tim Jones-Yelvington: I wish I could tell you that I think Lady Gaga and West are engaged in some form of race play or are somehow transgressing some other sort of interracially sexual taboo/transgression.

    But I don’t think so.

    To me, there’s more to the image of rescuing someone besides the presence of 1) having someone in another’s arms and 2) fatigues. For example, the position of the rescuee. For this to work as a “rescue” image to me, the rescuee would be crouched against the rescuer, semi-hiding the face or almost still in a state of shock instead of looking like the rescuer is a human sofa for a kicky pin-up shot, as Gaga looks to me in the photo. And the resucer would look shell-shocked and/or protective, not psuedo-campy zombified and as if the person is barely holding onto the person, as West looked to me. If these two wanted to go for rescue, they (and LaChappelle) should have studied the photos of, say, people who were rescued during Hurricane Katrina in order to figure out how to best stage that.

    No, this is about two people who think they’re saying something new and different about the sexual stereotypes of Black men and white women in the strength of the fact that they’re Kanye West and Lady Gaga and, by sheer dint of their celebrity will, we’ll think they are indeed transgressive, if not revolutionary, because they mined this controversial image.

    Feh.

    P.S. To those who think the volcano is “ejaculatory”: some volcanos do ejaculate very similarly to how that photo looks. Y’all may want to check the next Discovery Channel or Nova special on volcanos.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶

28. pinksghetti wrote:

    I don’t see it as being like King Kong but controversial because she’s naked and he is holding her in his arms. I think in the US nudity is always controversial no matter who is naked.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:16 pm ¶

29. RCHOUDH wrote:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaga used a racial/racist subtext to convey her message in that picture with Kanye. After watching her video for Love Game, I realized she used several racial subtexts within it. The video is about her and her “gang” causing a ruckus inside NYC’s subway tunnel and getting arrested for that. Her gang consists predominantly of POC men (black, Latino, and even one Asian). The police officers were largely white. I don’t think she was trying to bring attention to the tensions exhibited between the POC community and white police officers. If so her song “Love Game” is a strange song to use for bringing for that attention. She just wanted to seem “edgy” and “subversive” the same way she tries to act in her other videos. Some other “edgy” elements within that video include her having a threesome with two men (one white and the other black) and sharing a steamy kiss alternately with two white police officers (one man and the other a woman).

    So getting back to the image above, all I’m trying to say is I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaga went for an image of a black man (whether represented as King Kong or as simply a black man) holding a white woman because she wanted to again come off as “edgy”, “subversive” and “unique” from all the other female pop stars out there today. I doubt she was trying to bring attention to and dialogue about why black man/white woman relationships are so controversial in white Western society.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:39 pm ¶

30. uu wrote:

    This picture just looks strange to me and I don’t understand how this is suppose to promote whatever the hell they are promoting. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a photo of a White female/Black male subjects presented in a “slice of life” sort of way in media, such as this. Couldn’t they just take a pic of them in a coffee shop with a laptop in front of them, looking as though they are…well…collaborating to create something together?

    I wonder if the photographer would have troutted out the same picture if it were kanye and jennifer hudson working together or lady gaga and justin timberlake (counted that he’s still making music these days).

    Can you guys imagine if kanye looked the same in the pic but it was a naked jennifer hudson he was carrying or if it were a “zombie-fied” justin timberlake “rescuing” a naked lady gaga out of the jungle? Somehow that would just be even more weird and yet to the photographer this picture concept wasn’t. Highly suspect.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 6:58 pm ¶

31. yassibassu wrote:

    gaga: incendiary, salacious, not revolutionary
    kanye: a hot mess

    lady gaga is basically a female marilyn manson in terms of “aesthetic terrorism”, that is of smashing images together that seem oppositional and providing a bizzare spectacle for viewers: definitely entertaining but nowhere close to revolutionary…sorry.

    in terms of this king kong garbage…not surprised in the least. In her video “dirty rich” she and her white firends step over a black man to make some kind of statement in the beginning of the video. Didn’t like that much.

    Gaga is not her own person. Lady gaga is a product of the industry, a persona which must conform to the rules/profit motives/problematic tropes that most other stars that big must do.

    If it is pop ‘revolution’ then it needs o be obvious, because pop is geared toward 13 year olds. Tell me, please, would any 13 year old see feminist themes in gaga’s work? Would they see any anti-racist themes in gaga’s work? Unfortunately, we as older folks read books about this stuff, but her biggest audience are teenagers. What are THEY getting from all this?

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶

32. karak wrote:

    @Mia
    “I would compare this to an artist burning crosses in front of POC’s home and asking them to react and calling that art.”

    I do not think this picture is a re-imagining of a very real death threat. And, in general, while Gaga is arguably offensive, she does not intend to be threatening.

    On another note, I love Lady Gaga, especially her alternative fashion. She dresses like I do, and more than that, she sees how it’s beautiful.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 12:46 am ¶

33. Adrienne wrote:

    As for the imagery I thought that Kanye West and Lady Gaga is controversial because its a Black man holding a naked White woman.
    ( Do we see alot of images in pop culture of Black men holding a naked White woman outside of porn? )

    I think its controversial because of the sexual interracial pairing and because of how Lady Gaga is clean, not a speck of dirt on her and naked as the day she was born.

    Kanye’s zombie look makes him seem disassociated from a real relationship with her…the image would have a different meaning if he was gazing at her with love in his eyes and body language.

    Instead it looks like Night of the Living Dead meets a B-movie but with a dirty Black man rescuing the clean White woman. Because she doesn’t have a speck of dirt on her in a dirty, natural outdoor environment, Kanye has “preserved” her purity.

    Such an odd image.

    I wished the image had them expressing love for each other as lovers or mutal respect for each other as artists–or maybe this is their handlers definition of mutal respect as artists–working together, but not meshing too much–keeping a distance–keeping historical status quo up by Kanye not dirtying up Lady Gaga and not connecting with her.

    Hes looking ahead zombie like, she is looking at the camera as if to say “Look at me now. I’m beautiful, White and naked”

    And he’s looking ahead zombie like as if his brain is dead and someone else is controlling him outside of the picture.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 12:47 am ¶

34. Ain't I an African wrote:

    I do see it as King Kongesque. He have just rescued her, but that dead look in his eyes portends no good. The picture still brutalizes him, and what is “expected” of a big, black brute holding a lily white woman in his arms, especially one who is trying – and failing – to cover her modesty?

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 5:22 am ¶

35. Kaonashi wrote:

    There’s a nasty Taylor Swift joke in here. ~_^

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 7:03 am ¶

36. Jess wrote:

    I can’t disagree with either reading of the image as presented here.

    But I thought it interesting that the image of the WW I propaganda was used as a comparison point. The image was designed to rouse ire against the Germans. I think it would be tough to argue that the “gorilla” in that image is particularly coded as “black,” given when it was made and for what purpose. It makes an interesting comparison in some ways precisely for that reason.

    I saw it as Kanye in the rescuer role with Gaga trying to show how he isn’t essential to that — but that’s sort of another kettle of fish.

    But other than that I will also throw out a “Meh” — I don’t find Gaga’s stuff particularly subversive or interesting. Even Marylin Manson managed to do something a little more so, though I also threw him in the category of “I know this will bother parents” type of artist.

    I don’t expect pop stars to “challenge” or “subvert” with their art — it’s a business, they are in a job just like when some of us go to the office every morning. To me, that’s a romantic reading of art that buys into all kinds of myths about what being an artist is. I’m not saying you can’t critique it — but I am saying that let’s keep our expectations in check, as it were. Cheap “challenges” like this are sure-fire moneymakers. After all, we’re paying attention, and that was the point.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 9:01 am ¶

37. Ryan wrote:

    I think the picture is a weak attempt to outrage people. Starting with the subjects – two “controversial” people. Both of them are merely controversial because of our societys hyper PC phase not because the espouse any truly strange and unique ideas. Many people (black and white) are offended idea of a black man holding a naked white woman (some others may only be offended only by the nudity). And everyone involved knew that before they designed the layout of the picture. It’s not even original. It’s more like controversy by numbers.

    The to me there is only reason no one knows for sure what is going on there – is Lady Gaga a victim? is she being rescued? Could she be a mistress commanding her slave to carry her? Is she being held against her will but actually likes it? And that reason is the fact that Lady Gaga is most assuredly a bad actress in a ludicrous pose making this picture that much harder to understand. And they’ll just call it art.

    As for redefining beauty, I call BS. Notice how when she wants to get her picture taken at an event Lady Gaga goes for ridiculous outfits. When she wants to be sexy or beautiful, she goes to the basics. Fit. Naked. Blonde. She’s hardly redefining anything at all. If anything she’s narrowing it back down again.

    Someone made a point of about dehumanizing above. The dehumanizing here isn’t racial dehumanizing (though that’s what’s on the surface). These two are dehumanizing themselves like so many talent-challenged celebrities do. Neither of them are people anymore, they are commodities to be packaged, managed, and sold to the public in exchange for money and fame. Lady Gaga – naked (only gets press for skin and weird clothes), and Kanye – a tough-guy rapper (gets press for keeping it real or whatever it’s called now). They sold themselves to the fame machine to be foisted on us until we’re tired of them and that’s a bigger issue here than race.

    How different would we view this picture if it was Kanye carrying a random black model? And how different would we view it if he was carrying a naked Queen Latifah or Serena Williams? Now that would be art.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 11:25 am ¶

38. Wyatt wrote:

    Kanye and Gaga are attention whores, so they knew what this image would stir debate and how people would either positively or negatively react. And so, it’s a waste of time because it’s so 1992, very superficial and racist. That is, Gaga wants to be the new Madonna.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 11:48 am ¶

39. JS wrote:

    Ryan,

    Kanye is not a gangster rapper that “keeps it real” what ever that means. Before the Taylor Swift incident he was never coded as masculine or a threat.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 11:49 am ¶

40. method wrote:

    At what point do we admit that the image is acting as a mirror or a magnet for our particular sensitivities and as such is successful as a particular kind of artwork? I’m seeing all these responses that declare this isn’t art because it’s {tacky/clichéd/racist/commercial} and suggestions that the image could be “fixed” by {including a black woman/having the subjects show affection for each other/changing the location/changing the posing}. Someone even suggests that this would be a better picture if it was of “them in a coffee shop with a laptop in front of them”. No, because then we wouldn’t be talking about this picture, plus that has nothing to do with the sci-fi theme of the shoot. At some point you have to accept that the art, as it is, is what “got you”. This isn’t to say that every arresting or shocking racist image is art, but an image which is clearly debatable (since we’re debating it) should be taken at face value as an artistic expression, trashy or not, misguided or not.

    To me, the broader issue is about whether we are going to let the shadows of previous racist imagery always dictate the possibilities for future art. With the King Kong claim, we’re talking about a particular silhouette and a particular contrast. So even though the details of the picture *don’t actually support it* (whereas in the Lebron/Giselle image it’s unmistakable) the author of this post superimposes the King Kong imagery onto the image because of a certain defensive expectation about images that have black men and white women in them. But that kind of sucks, doesn’t it? It means that images with black men and white women in them are by definition controversial and exploitative. Kanye West may have been attracted to an image of himself as inhuman/untouched by naked white beauty (at least he consented to the picture), but because of the prior frame we expect him to be exploited, brutalized, powerless.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶

41. nick wrote:

    I don’t have anything useful to add to this discussion except that I found the Kanye/GaGa image just downright weird.

    Whatever purpose it was supposed to serve, it flew right by me.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶

42. nick wrote:

    Additionally,

    I know little about LeBron but – for what it’s worth – I thought the cover was pretty cool.

    He looks like a guy on the top of his game and one you don’t mess with.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 4:46 pm ¶

43. Val wrote:

    I guess I’m the one w/the dirtiest mind… It looks to me like Kanye has a “semi-chub”: look at his L upper thigh!
    P.S. I’m not impressed by whatever point they’re trying to make either.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶

44. John Milton Wesley wrote:

    Arts always imitates life especially when we (Black men) are playing ourselves as portrayed in media.

    For years, traditionally in movies and TV Black men have always been cast fighting for their jobs. While White men are cast fighting for their lives. Black men were cast fighting to save their honor. White men were cast fighting to save either their families, or the “damsel in distress” who is also usually white. Black men are cast as “helpers,” whether it was “I Spy”, “Miami Vice,” or “In the Heat of the Night.” White men were cast as “over comers” whether it was James Bond, Little House on the Prairie, “Gunsmoke”, or ‘Rifleman”.

    While I have no problem with these stereotypical roles years ago (we needed the work), there were limited choices available to us.

    Not so today, Black male “stars” have choices, including the choice ( as Kanye West has made here) to reprise the role of King Kong. Oh, to emerge from the fire storm, the “hero” unscathed with your prize (a White blond bomb shell, naked and grateful) Success is so sweet!

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 6:34 pm ¶

45. Ginsu Shark wrote:

    I wonder if the “zombie look” thing was intentional, or Kanye was just told to “look determined” or something and this was the result…

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 9:17 pm ¶

46. BillytheKidd wrote:

    Btw,
    I personally don’t read “monster”, “zombie” “slave/servant”, “King Kong” or “Frankenstein” into Kanye. I rather see rugged, aloof, strong and autonomous, all traits Clint Eastwood and the Wild Bunch have been asserting as quintessentially the American Male for the past 50 years.

    Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 2:20 am ¶

47. Natalie Stites wrote:

    I think it’s a version of the Taylor Swift moment. Lady Gaga playing Swift and Kanye playing “himself.”

    Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 3:38 am ¶

48. ashlynn wrote:

    I really am not sure what to make of this. I feel compelled to write to Kanye and Gaga and ask them, “wtfux?”

    Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 3:48 am ¶

49. Test Card Girl wrote:

    It looks very much like one of the posters for the movie “I Walked With A Zombie”, in which a zombie is carrying a woman in a flowing white gown, especially because of his expression.

    Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 6:56 pm ¶

50. Westerly wrote:

    …Whereas for me, I actually have to concentrate in order to consciously pay ANY attention to Kanye, because Gaga is entirely foregrounded and is so central to the frame that she overwhelms it. He is one step away from being background detail…

    Part of it is frankly, the colour scheme.

    I think the eye (or at least my eye) is trained towards Gaga’s nakedness, blondeness and whiteness off-set against a decidedly ‘dark’ almost dull setting.

    Maybe the intention is to shock, but if they keep reproducing and rearticulating this worn-out image over and over…and over again, maybe it will result in de-sensitivisation and weariness with the image – if it hasn’t already – instead of leading to any interest in or understanding of it.

    Posted 25 Dec 2009 at 9:56 pm ¶

51. Ani wrote:

    david la chappelle is an artist, so it’s his job to create images that make people think. obviously, he did his job well with this photo.

    i think if you look at this photo within the context of his body of work, it’s easier to see that he definitely understands the implications of his subject matter. much of his work deals with race.

    Posted 27 Dec 2009 at 8:05 am ¶