Michelle Obama depicted as nude slave on magazine cover

I find the comments interesting, and agree with some of them, but particularly disagree with the one stating the image was made to reinforce the denial of agency to black women. Although I question whether that's what the quoted individual meant to say. I do agree that it does, at least subliminally, reinforce the idea to some viewers, for sure, which is very problematic. But to suggest that was the motive of the artist -- to assume such a malicious motive -- is, I think, assumptuous and unappealing.
 
Last edited:
Stu said:
It is obscene. I have noted a moral superiority emanating from Canada toward the US consistently on the forum. I get it, America is the largest economy and has the deadliest military. We slaughtered the Native population and enslaved Africans, subjecting both to intense atrocities (not the least of which being the rape of their women). We are an easy mark.

Michelle Obama is the (most gracious) first lady of the United States of America, I take exception to anyone messing with her image.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about, but the magazine is Spanish, not Canadian.

Also, Canada has likewise slaughtered its Aboriginal population, and apparently has a dicey slave history that no one talks about (from what I've heard). Actually, are there many countries, particularly western countries, that have not taken to genocide with their Indigenous communities? It's terrible.
 
This is so insignificant, it would be silly to bother being offended by. The last thing I would see this as would be as created to be offensive on purpose. I see it as a creation that offers a bit of a twist on perspective; it makes you think a little bit. In fact, I think it could even be seen as liberating.
 
I didnt read the article, but maybe its making a poignant point about where her people come from. Its important to keep such things in mind, her black skin and African features are not something she can escape, nor the history of her ancestors. In a way its kind of incredible how far she has come and her people considering how incredibly racist the country was and still is towards black people. I can make a billion dollars next year and I will still know that I come from humble white trash roots and would celebrate that fact. Not try to hide it in the closet like some dirty secret.
 
niffer said:
This is so insignificant, it would be silly to bother being offended by. The last thing I would see this as would be as created to be offensive on purpose. I see it as a creation that offers a bit of a twist on perspective; it makes you think a little bit. In fact, I think it could even be seen as liberating.
Click to expand...

I like this. But I'll play devil's advocate if you don't mind. Is it likely to be seen as liberating? Theoretically, it might intend to serve a specific purpose (such as the one espoused by the artist or the one you put forth), but does it actually serve such a purpose or does it play to its opposite due to the public's ability to interpret the message in a particular way? Does it achieve the goal of subversion if most of the audience is unable to pick up on the tactic?
 
The comments were funny, I wonder how many of them were actually black Americans. Its no surprise to them that many whites will always see blacks as less than them. It seems only whites are outraged, not so much because they think its offensive, but because its another reminder of what some of their ancestors did, and well its not fun remembering that portion of history.
 
oceanbreeze said:
I like this. But I'll play devil's advocate if you don't mind. Is it likely to be seen as liberating? Theoretically, it might intend to serve a specific purpose (such as the one espoused by the artist or the one you put forth), but does it actually serve such a purpose or does it play to its opposite due to the public's ability to interpret the message in a particular way? Does it achieve the goal of subversion if most of the audience is unable to pick up on the tactic?
Click to expand...
This is a great point. If this is the case, then it would be a piece of art that "failed to deliver" the "message" for the most part. I think pressure/responsibility does fall on the artist a lot more as the communicator who must do research and take into account the mindset of the audience (if they care about how their art is received that is).
 
Stu said:
It is obscene. I have noted a moral superiority emanating from Canada toward the US consistently on the forum. I get it, America is the largest economy and has the deadliest military. We slaughtered the Native population and enslaved Africans, subjecting both to intense atrocities (not the least of which being the rape of their women). We are an easy mark.

Michelle Obama is the (most gracious) first lady of the United States of America, I take exception to anyone messing with her image.
Click to expand...

Whats the story with the natives of Canada? Are they living happily together?
 
Stu said:
...Michelle Obama is the (most gracious) first lady of the United States of America, I take exception to anyone messing with her image.
Click to expand...

Yes, I pretty much agree, but mostly because I think that people have some rights over how their image is used.

Also, a bit of art history: "Africa" as a concept is frequently depicted by a partially nude black woman, see the Six Continents Statues outside the Musee D'Orsay in Paris -- I have a friend who is quite offended by this fact, but all the continents are in some stage of undress, except for Europe. It's supposedly all allegorical, but people just see boobs and read waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into it than was possibly intended by the creators.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/1473790716/

People do tend to get a little worked up over nudity.

P.S. And I should probably clarify that it is the fact that only the Europe statue got to wear clothes was what offended my friend; she thought it was too Euro-centric. I didn't even notice at first, but now I think she has a bit of a point.

P.P.S. And that magazine is Spanish, not Canadian.
 
Last edited:
oceanbreeze said:
I don't know what you're talking about, but the magazine is Spanish, not Canadian.

.
Click to expand...
my bad, I assumed it was Canadian because the link was from a Toronto paper, I got very offended by the photo.
 
Last edited:
UBERROGO said:
Whats the story with the natives of Canada? Are they living happily together?
Click to expand...

id90ad15aox9xo1.jpg


For me, it would depend what the article says. From what I can gather, it is not insulting toward Michelle Obama and in fact is quite complimentary. To recognise history is not a bad thing and I think that was a tasteful way of doing it. It's not like they superimposed her onto a distateful or violent image of slavery; it's a very feminine image and, yes, that is the reality of Michelle Obama's heritage. If the article is related to the incredible shift in attitudes towards black people in America then I think it is fine.

It's a little unnecessary, like most things. But it isn't especially gratuitious. It just makes the point; it brings together the two ends of the spectrum when one considers the treatment of black people in the USA.
 
UBERROGO said:
Whats the story with the natives of Canada? Are they living happily together?
Click to expand...

It depends on who you ask.

I'll link an example that offers a glimpse into some of the issues faced by the Aboriginal Canadian communities. Keep in mind there are of course exceptions to this, and strides are being made by Aboriginal persons fighting for their rights along with the occasional ally, but as a population group they are significantly worse off than the settler community.
 
Cornerstone said:
. From what I can gather, it is not insulting toward Michelle Obama and in fact is quite complimentary..
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The fact is that most of the non African dna in the African-American population got there as a result of white slave owners raping slave women. Slave women were routinely bought and sold for their sex.
 
I dunno, I guess if it is all fair game

How about some German leader's wife face posted over Eva Brauns?

French leaders imposed over something intimating they belong to the Vichy government?

In some instances, the face that "is" is the remarkable one, not the one that "was". The undeniable symbolism it to continue to reinforce the notion that to be black is to be a slave. The visual image does not harken the observer to make some intuitive or conscious leap toward "oh and now they are not longer slaves, look how far they come". The message, IMO, is "you have a slave in the White House"
 
Politically/socially, meh.

But when I put myself in her or her family's shoes, I get pissed. It's disrespectful.
 
I have to say that the exposed breast bothers me. Not because I have anything against nude art, or against women's breasts in particular, but because in this society it is deemed disrespectful to bare one's breast. By superimposing Michelle's face onto the subject's body, the artist has, in essence, beared the First Lady's breast. Whether or not that is her actual breast seems beside the point; the message has been conveyed.
I also think it's disrespectful to women that bearing a breast somehow lowers one's honour or esteem, but that's another discussion altogether.
 
Stu said:
I have to disagree. The fact is that most of the non African dna in the African-American population got there as a result of white slave owners raping slave women. Slave women were routinely bought and sold for their sex.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with everything I said because I don't see how the bit you quoted relates to what I said? I was saying that the article about Michelle Obama appears to be complimentary...though I haven't read the full article and the translation of what I did see wasn't perfect.

Please, can you clarify what you're trying to say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top