WHAT SAY YOU?!??
LeBron, Gisele and Vogue: The Cover Controversy
Posted: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:06 AM by Dan Fleschner
Filed Under: Live from Studio 1A <!– Dan Fleschner –>
Here it is, the controversial Vogue cover featuring NBA star LeBron James and supermodel Gisele Bundchen.
This morning, Peter Alexander reported on the controversy, followed by Ann Curry’s interview with CNBC’s Donny Deutsch and humorist/TV commentator Nancy Giles. WATCH VIDEO
The cover has caused a lot of chatter, particularly online, over whether the shot (taken by famed photographer Annie Liebovitz) perpetuates racial stereotypes.
Some look at the cover and don’t think much of it, that it’s an interesting shot of two of the world’s most recognizable people.
Others, however, see it as the embodiment of racial and sexual stereotypes, that it’s a depiction of an aggressive, black man in a King Kong-like pose, embracing a white woman, a Fay Wray-like “damsel in distress.”
Still others say that there were plenty of better photos to choose from to put on the cover.
So what’s your take?
And in thinking about this story, I couldn’t help but wonder…what’s the more racist response to the cover: to see racial stereotypes and object or to not notice race at all?
This page has the following sub pages.
It would be nice if athletes and other entertainers thought more about the racial and social implications of their actions, even photos. All too often, they believe that what they say or do does not matter or has very minimal impact. While that may be true in some instances, it is their involvement in such activities that does more harm than good. This is the first time an African American male has appeared on the cover of Vogue. This is not the kind of precedent or first impression you want to make. Madison Avenue does it again. It makes you wonder who or where are their handlers.
Being ’so-called’ free in America, while still having to over-explain innocent (albeit, maybe ignorant) behavior or always having to constantly look over your shoulder for being yourself (as an African-American male), is the actual 800 pound gorilla in that camera studio… not LeBron ‘King’ James! I know we should show an appreciation for what King and our other US born (African-American) ancestors have done to afford us the freedom we now have, but can we now do that best by ‘feeling our oats’ and doing things without fear of reprisal from our own.
I wonder if LeBron thought he was posing like a gorilla and perpetuating some obscure stereotype, or was he just having fun being Lebron? To incur this much ire and backlash from his own seems like it could make him a bit discouraged (at the least), or bitter (at the most)! Instead of giving away our public opinion so easily and revealing our disunity, maybe we should try to quietly correct and teach LeBron (and others), rather than being so quick on the trigger to disavow!
*This comment was not meant directly towards the previous commenter (Dr. Mangum), it’s just my generic opinion based on the public contoversy and issues of this subject.
Besides the discussion taking place on this website, I do not think there is any “ire and backlash” over this cover. That comment is blowing things out of proportion. Unless I missed something, no one else is talking about the cover in the media. Like LeBron has the ability to express himself, so does his dissenters or anyone else who wants to comment on his or anyone else’s actions. Therefore, it is not productive to be silent when one feels something is counterproductive. Disunity is a trait of every community, sorry to say. My comments can hardly be so inflammatory as to cause such a result! Also, I am not disavowing! However, it seems that in replying to my statement, one is doing that. Maybe this website or others speaking out might help LeBron learn as you suggest he might need.
I’ve actually heard a lot about this in the media than just our opinion, there were many others as well. I’ve seen several clips where random people were being asked their perspective and ones in which there’s a panel to go to. I’ve heard several radio shows discuss it (mainly urban ones); also the fact that it has made this and many other blogs (and the blog’s comment section). Majority of who I’ve heard in all these venues and formats have negative things to say about LeBron’s decision for the pose. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard support for him as well, just not as much as the negative. If you even look at the ‘watch video’ above (within the article) it gives a perspective that reveals what I’ve noticed.
I was not saying that you personally were disavowing him, however most have because of this very photo. The fact that disunity exists in other cultures should make us have more of a desire to be united with all of what our people experience in the U.S.. The argument that LeBron’s dissenters should be allowed to express themselves (just as he should) is circular, as even I should be allowed to. My suggestion to ‘quietly correct’ Mr. James was not an attack on free speech as much as it was a plea to try to be united when our knee-jerk reaction might pull otherwise.
The following quote from my first comment above is quite contrary to disavowing language:
“*This comment was not meant directly towards the previous commenter (Dr. Mangum), it’s just my generic opinion based on the public controversy and issues of this subject.”
If people choose, then they can disavow him. Also, if you are correct about disunity, then disunity should make some like LeBron be more careful of the images they portray as well as be united. I should also be allowed to express myself. I am glad you realized the irony in your response to me. It would be helpful if those who respond to dissenters did not have knee-jerk reactions. Knee-jerk reactions to call for unity and allow other blacks to perpetuate stereotypes or other negative images is not healthy. While you put in the disclaimer, it does not disclaim. The context of your writing undermines that attempt.
I guess what it boils down to, is if you have a reaction to the photo due to some naturalistic historically racial social trigger response or that you understand that the models would have not posed such if they believed it had racial implications; and the photographer shot according to their style of capturing art through photography without racial implications; and that Vogue had no ill-conceived notion that doing something racially imbued would boost their sales. Whatever side you fall on, it would behoove you (‘you’ is being generically applied) to not jump to conclusions and assume you got it figured out (any more than I do). Even my above monograph is based in grand speculation. We can no more say what anyone was thinking than they could us for our reasons of even commenting on this. I cannot tell if others say things, just so they can be known as the one who has said it and/or to champion certain causes/perspectives, anymore than anyone could say the same for me. If the photographer is a white woman I could easily speculate that she is living out her fantasy through her lens, but that would be no more fair than ascribing racially ill intentions to anyone involved. It does seem that those who’ve had the most dissension in the shows, programs and blogs that watched and read, seem to be those most intolerant of interracial dating/pairing! Alas, that is yet another assumption predicated by one’s own predisposition.
the photo doesn’t make sense. what are they doing if not impersonating king kong. if you took a room full of people who had never heard of king kong and asked them to describe what they see in that picture, they wouldn’t know what it portrays. that’s what makes it a bad choice for a cover. you have to think king kong or think it doesn’t make sense.
Having the last word and/or winning a debate is not all it’s ‘cracked up’ to be… especially when your face gets cracked in the meantime! Maurice your instincts proved right, however it would appear this ‘rabbit hole’ goes deeper than what you may have known (go to the following):
http://poorsoulssociety.wordpress.com/black-men-speak-up/racism-or-just-over-sensitivity/when-winning-the-debate-isnt-good-enough/
Without reading too far and allowing the opinions of others to color my view, I’d have to say that after reading the first article and some of the comments that followed, my immediate thought was, the power and irony of art. I thought it a play on art placing attention to some of the differences of today. Yes, I believe we could view it with concerned eyes, but again my immediate thought raises its voice inside and says ahh I see, from the eye of this photographer. The fact that these are very well known figures and the fact she is smiling reveals to me, change, some lightness. The fact that we know that this man is unable to be tamed so to speak on the court, and we have and continue to name him King; King James; On the contrary sadly, my soul is connected to a truth that we have been and continue to be victims of cruelty and hatred; vial racism, and so this too raises within me the memory of this connection and I am unable to view it simply as art, but a revelation of how we have been and continue to be depicted in a negative light. I am then torn. I appreciate art, but I acknowledge truth.
Once again, apellido, you misinterpret me. Indeed, your face has been cracked a few times, by whom it does not matter. Unfortunately, my thinking is deeper than what you are comprehending. Also, I cannot help but to notice how you tell me what I should and should not do. Nevertheless, you do it or do not do it.
I have not even characterized my own reaction. Thanks for misinterpreting that too. You are the one jumping to conclusions and you do not have it all figured out. I did not say I did, nor is that important.
You come after me as if I have things wrong and you have them right or that you have it all figured out. How can you be so sure? If the subject is the photo, then why criticize those who dislike it? Would it be more appropriate and mature just to defend the photo? Furthermore, it is surprising that you have taken this personally. It seems that you have been injured personally or your feelings have been hurt.
Moreover, I did not say what the photographer or editor was thinking. If you bothered reading, I placed blame elsewhere. The only thing I said critically about the photo’s producers is that I do not think it is good form to use a controversial photo when it is the first time something is done. Also, I blamed Madison Avenue, LeBron, and LeBron’s handlers more than I did the photographer and editor (if I blamed them at all, for I was just wanting them to be more aware).
I have been critical of your tactics, however. Your way of debating or disagreeing with someone is not healthy, in my opinion. Also, having double standards is very counterproductive.
For the record, I have not said a word about interracial dating. This is a case in point for why I do not like to argue. We are discussing opinions, which are not right or wrong. Yet, there should be no need to attack the individuals who hold a certain position. Since this topic is about the photo, keeping the conversation just about the photo would be more healthy. There is no need to talk about the people who hold favorable or unfavorable positions.
i’d like to bring these seemingly disparate opinions together because i see a bunch of common ground. the possibilities of literary criticism permit multiple levels of analysis. one may view the art (magazine cover) as a representation of Liebovitz conscious attitudes about basketball, race, interracial dating, aggression, or what she believes is visually appealing. Or perhaps the photo projects her subconscious on the canvas without Liebovitz knowing consent to reveal that dimension.
another approach entails ignoring artist’s intentions and examining what the impact, perhaps accidental, of the piece on viewers – which creates a built-in defense for the artist while praising her ability to provoke thought and discussion. i find this approach to be the least stimulating because it assumes that artists are not responsible for their artistic representations; as if the podium and great privilege of increased exposure does not carry a corresponding increase in responsibility. that’s why when people take the high ground of “this is art and it makes us talk”, i feel like they’re according the artist too much power without qualifying the reasons that power should be conferred in the first place. a less sophisticated version of the same argument says “it’s a magazine, people, so it is of no impact. it will line a litter box one day.” that’s circular reasoning at best and denial at worst. the idea that a magazine cover has no impact because it’s a magazine cover is a little too pedestrian to qualify as literary criticism considering the body of social theory holding that images shape attitudes.
a third approach entails examining the motives of those portrayed in the art. this is possible as long as there is sufficient information to color such an analysis. certainly, the fact that lebron received compensation in return for a release of his image could almost end the analysis. what seems like an easy payday comes at a multi-level price, however. one tangible component of that price is that observers like Dr. Maurice will question lebron’s sense of social responsibility.
Dr. Maurice’s critique opened another level of analysis. it also provoked responses and thought, thus opening itself to the dynamic criticism any other piece would be exposed to, begging the question: does commenting on a piece of art entail a duty to comment responsibly? by the same token, appellido’s critique of Dr. Maurice has a place in literary criticism and that place is not devoid of responsibility either.
my view is that lebron probably didn’t realize at the time he was being photographed that he would be depicted as the gorilla in that photo. i think the photographer violated the trust lebron conferred her. this assumes that he wasn’t aware of that poster or that she was looking to portray him in such a demeaning way. we should tax the photographer here because she probably under-compensated lebron in light of the costs he will bear. -slim
Dear Dr. Mangum,
I sincerely apologize if you have taken any of my comments personally, however as I indicated before my original comments where not directed towards you. Unfortunately you beat me to the punch on commenting on this article and it just appeared as though I was responding to you! In fact, if you watch the video next to the picture within the article (above), it may become apparent that I was responding to it (the article). I have no issues of injury that I’m venting, nor is this unnecessarily personal for me. I have not characterized (or mischaracterized) your intent, because again my comments where not meant for you (or towards you). I was merely expressing my perspective. I have not imposed a double standard. I have been just as critical of my own views or I would not have written the follow up:
(http://poorsoulssociety.wordpress.com/black-men-speak-up/racism-or-just-over-sensitivity/when-winning-the-debate-isnt-good-enough/).
I discovered new information that colored my perspective and I introduced that with commentary that explains my various beliefs. I am not so rigid of a person that when confronted with more (or new) information, evidence or facts that I do not at least give them an honest consideration. I do not believe that I have all the answers and I’ve poured over my previous posts to this thread and could not find where you derived that. If my responses have offended you, then I again apologize if you’ve taken anything to be that way. This Blog was created for free expression, so I will let this post be my last as a direct response to you about this topic. I hope we can have future meaningful dialogue about other topics.
Thank you ’slim’ for trying to mediate… your thoughts and insights were very helpful.
I was not offended and did not take things personally like you did. Get real, apellido. No one is buying that crap.
Well, I’ve only got one thing to say: Where the white women at? (or Brazillian, in this case…)
Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out, my thoughts: If our reactions to the picture indeed may fall under one form of racism or another (I don’t think anyone said that specifically, or even meant that, but this is the internet, dammit!), I guess I’d fall under the latter – the not seeing anything at all (in this particular instance). Maybe I’ve been exposing myself to too much garbage and “America’s Next Top Model”… which some see as same difference, but to me, that shot looked like two people posing on the cover of a magazine. While I was surprised (I don’t know why… Vogue tends to have an elitist vibe to it) to read that LeBron James was the first black man on the cover, I didn’t see anything in that picture besides two people enjoying a photo shoot.
Until, that is, I read this blog and watched the video. Sadly, upon looking after reading the comments, I do see, with his expression and the way he’s holding “the girl” a King Kong-esque shot and portrayal of a great basketball star. But I think that brings up yet another point – how many people thought nothing of it. And that’s a question in itself – how many people don’t see something until it is brought up? And how many times is such a thing brought up where it actually has merit?
I firmly believe people in being vocal in kudos or criticism, but tactfully and respectfully. If possible, I like to pull people aside rather than “put them on blast” in front of their peers… unless that is especially necessary (and it’s hard to get around when a) you don’t know someone personally and b) they’re in the public eye). Everyone should certainly be subject to the same criticism anyone shoud be subject to, but too often I see people coming out of the woodwork to chastise someone when they need to work on what they are putting out in regards to themselves. That being said, I think the criticism of responsibility (whether in regards to LeBron or the photographer) does have merit here. But before I go on, I’d like to announce a short intermission. Everybody do the knee-jerk!
Had I seen this a week ago, even, I probably would have just chalked it up to what Slim correctly pinpointed as the go-to response to attempt to foil criticism of modern day photography – it’s an art thing – you wouldn’t understand (though Slim’s way of putting it was a bit more eloquent).
Admitting that I probably would just shrug and say, “I guess that’s art, good for them”, I have a somewhat different view as of late. Considering what’s going on with Annie Liebovitz now in regards to the Miley Cyrus situation, perhaps she is a bit more manipulative than I would assume. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not exactly saying that “the poor girl must have had no idea what she was doing”, in fact, I’m not saying that at all. But, I will allow that some of that same sentiment could be used in regards to the LeBron/Giselle cover – a young, celebrated man, getting a chance to be photographed by someone with a great reputation for a magazine that tends to tout itself as elite and one that he would break a barrier simply by appearing on. Sometimes, as long as you’ve been in a specific business, you might still think “this person’s an expert”, so they know what’s best/who am I to contest it. Sadly, I doubt I would’ve thought that far into the context of it in such a position, either. So maybe it’s not her subconcious (but I do think that is a possibility), but her wanting to spark controversy and using others to do that.
I do agree that people have to think about the context in which they present themselves, but there are people afoot to try to find something wrong with anything simply to bring someone down (again, I doubt anyone doesn’t realize that, but I still choose to say it). I remember people going off about “Black Snake Moan” and a black man having a white girl chained up. Some people see something sinister, something that makes them cry “[he or she] should have known better” when really someone is just doing what they would normally do.
Now if you’ll excuse me, there are other internet blogs that are in dire need of a rambling poster.
Blogger’s Note: Not only was that an unintentional smiley (poorly placed punctuation next to a parenthesis), but I also just realize I said “afoot”… But hey, when you start out with your credibility shot, there’s no way to go but up!