Home
Regional Home Pages:
Québec Mexico Brazil United Kingdom Spain France Netherlands Germany Sweden Italy Austria Israel China Korea Japan Australia
Made in Downtown LA
T-shirts, sweatshop-free, wholesale t-shirts, American Apparel, Made in Los Angeles
As Featured in i-D Magazine
 
Posted by: Lisa  8/13/2007  13:16
See a recent article in i-D magazine above (click to enlarge).

From the editor (added August 24, 2007): We've received a lot of feedback about this photo recently printed in i-D magazine. Many people have been deeply offended by the photograph. We want to make it clear that this photo is not an American Apparel ad. We truly appreciate the opinions of our readers, and we'll attempt to convey your sentiments to I-D magazine.
 
New Comment
 
Who are you?
Name
E-Mail
 
 
Posted by: DeB 8/14/2007  06:17
where can you get this magazine??? i love this photo!!! someone please let me know .
debsasassykins@comcast.net
 
Posted by: F.U. 8/14/2007  17:03
So glad we are reveling in an ad that features black face... way to go!!!
 
Posted by: caca 8/14/2007  21:30
you can get iD at any decent bookstore.. namely chain stores. sometimes even 7-11 will have them or virgin megastore.
 
Posted by: Intern 4 Life 8/15/2007  11:17
To F.U. - I revel in this ad! AA fashion is encouraging a diversity of beauty and artistic expression, breaking the mold of typical Romanesque anorexic models, bridging cultures while generating a new standard of fashion. Yes, I am reveling in it! This shot would not have worked with any other brand, not A&F, not Gap, not Urban Outfitters. Try to look beyond your childish emotions and see what the pic represents - its not blackface just because her face is BLACK!
This shot does the opposite of blackface, it promotes, not degrades, the essence of black beauty. PEACE!
 
Posted by: a white dude 8/15/2007  14:34
Anyone noticed that the model is actually black?

We need more hot black women models... I love beautiful black women 8)
 
Posted by: Lover of Colors 8/15/2007  16:35
It's a sexy, and most of all it's very artistic in its use of colors. The model is beautiful in the shot, and I'd bet she's just as, if not more beautiful in person.
 
Posted by: emily. 8/15/2007  16:44
an observation_contrast between the cover and our feature? stark. luckily we arent having to compete with roses to adorn the blond.

i had a hard time thinking of anything but chocolate tho. i guess its just the afternoon dragging on. i suppose AA is like candy but sweeter. and like layered cake but better. but does this analogy dumb down our audience? we are, in the same breath, taking a major jab at a history of blackface and self-parody.

we hardly feature models with african descent. is the model comfortable with this portrayal? anybody know her? who took this shot..here?
 
Posted by: bow 8/15/2007  16:51
is she supposed to be in blackface? or is it just about really bright lips?
 
Posted by: Quentin 8/15/2007  16:54
Omg thas so high fashion!
iloveit
 
Posted by: sally 8/15/2007  17:00
i think it's something to do with the exaggerated pink lips... just brings to mind some tasteless antiquated caricatures... i don't think it's unintentional.
 
Posted by: Simone 8/15/2007  17:04
I think this is extremely racist! As a young black women I am truly sad that American Apparel would let I-D magazine misrepresent them in such a way. I know American Apparel is known for being provocative but this is just taking it way too far!
 
Posted by: kitsune 8/15/2007  17:41
Was the art director inspired by Aunt Jemima? Not exactly an inspiring image.
 
Posted by: Madison. 8/15/2007  17:44
I just love all the colors in this.
 
Posted by: kim 8/15/2007  17:47
truthfully i dont know what to make of this ad. ummmm when i first saw it i admit i was taken aback i immediately thought sambo and that i was being bamboozled. i immediately thought that i was gonna have to boycott aa even though i really like their clothes. but on the flip side i thought maybe aa was taking an idea that in history has been perceived as negative and making it positive and then maybe on another tip they were being artistic as far as contrasting dark and light colors. who knows? at any rate i think the sista is beautiful and it just goes to show that women of color are beautiful no matter what shade of brown they are!
 
Posted by: Lisa 8/15/2007  17:59
Just to clear one thing up - this is not an American Apparel ad. It's a fashion editorial spread that appears in the current in i-D magazine, a British fashion/art/music publication.

Carry on with the discussion..
 
Posted by: mike 8/15/2007  18:00
yea, it's racist.
check out the review:
misteriotremendum.com
 
Posted by: Marely 8/15/2007  18:04
This is the ugliest photo I've ever seen. The only thing I liked about it was that it was centered. And what's with the headdress? Since when do fashionistas wear leggings on their heads? If AA was so in support of headdresses they would sell them.
 
Posted by: a.w. 8/15/2007  18:20
racist, racist, racist. shame on american apparel for featuring something like this on their site.
 
Posted by: Christian 8/15/2007  19:30
Mike: The only racist here is you...who has so quickly looked past the real point of this ad (exaggerated color/contrast with the bold colored shirts) and has recognized the "racist quality" that seems to be brimming in your mind. If you want to sulk in the racist America of decades ago, keep it to yourself. The rest of us will enjoy the art and the beautiful model.
 
Posted by: sensualeye 8/15/2007  20:20
Um...blackface? Really?!
Art(istic) and controversial...yes.
Thoughtful and creative...no.

This is just bad taste and if AA doesn't seperate themselves from this some bad press this way comes.

The fact they haven't yet has lost me as a customer.
 
Posted by: DeB 8/15/2007  20:28
caca thank you!
 
Posted by: Kidd Samson 8/15/2007  21:56
If she'd styled herself I would have second thoughts, because then I would say so just cause she's black she can't wear really bright lipstick without people immediately thinking of black face?
But, she didn't. She is one of the blackest people I have ever seen, I have a feeling they wouldn't have given such bright lipstick to any other black girls with skin a shade lighter. Is that the point? you can do anything you want? You shouldn't have to worry about that? Did a black person shoot it?
 
Posted by: Josh Davis 8/15/2007  22:08
I don't know anything about that magazine, but my guess is it is one of the few or possibly its only portrayal of a black female. It's great to shatter past ideas and everything but, in context it feels wrong. I doubt black people are excited about the ad. Just seems like a canvas, an easy way to couch your racist joke as a ground breaking anti-racist statement.
 
Posted by: Maarten 8/16/2007  01:38
Jesus. Looking up racial differences and moan about it makes you more racist rather than AA. It's not like they post on the front page: BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD DIE.
Though I would like that.
 
Posted by: LG 8/16/2007  03:53
This is a horrible, cynical picture. As a black woman, I am usually thrilled to see a model with very dark skin on an ad. But on this one they made her look like a old caricature of a "negresse". The lipstick, the clothing, the dead eyes, the reference to chocolate cake... It's so obvious what they were aiming for with this photo. I was shocked by its blatant racism as soon as I saw it in the AA newsletter. Coming from Senegal, I have uncles who died during WWII, used as canon-fodder by the french army, and aunts who were raped by french officers. The French would often represent our people in caricatures in the same way as this picture does, as "savages" with exaggerated bright lips and dead eyes, in order to ease their conscience about raping them and sending them to death for a war that was not theirs. The message these caricatures would send was something like "Look at their faces, these people are monkeys with no brains, who cares about them". It's 2007, when I see that images like this are still being made, it feels very much like a slap in the face, a denial of the pain that many black families have gone through. No, it's not about self-parody or "taking something historically negative and turning it into something positive", or "encouraging ehtnical diversity in fashion". This picture is just plainly insulting for any person of african descent with a minimum of knowledge about the history of black people. And it's NOT up to art directors or to non-black people to decide for us that certain ways of representing us are suddenly ok and "ironic".
I am aware that AA did not produce this picture, but I think they should have protested against it and should definitely not be using it in their newsletters AT ALL. And I'm never ever again in my life going to buy an i-D mag.
 
Posted by: Barb 8/16/2007  05:09
I think this ad has a place in self-examination. I am a woman of color and in my 50's. I can see why people would feel disconcerted about this colorful dipiction of this beautiful young woman. I think it is perfect, we are talking about issues that impacted many peoples lives in the past both positive and negative.

I actually think that we need to look at things a bit differently. Back in the day, there were black performers who did vaudeville and comedy. White performers capitalized on those "Negro" stereotypes.

Both black and white seemed to enjoy what they did, were involved in the "arts," and maybe even earned a few dollars. I see the same phenomenon today in our entertainment and pop-culture, less the painted face.

We need to talk, think, realize and move on in a positive way. Always remaining sensitive to our pasts but aware that we are living in the present.

Peace to us all,
Barb
 
Posted by: Miyako 8/16/2007  06:36
This ad is a disgrace to my people! Yes She is a beautiful Black Queen But the way this photo is portrayed is a Hot mess !
 
Posted by: michelle 8/16/2007  07:41
First of all, this is not "high fashion". That's like saying featuring new H&M clothing in a spread is high fashion. Furthermore, too, too many fashion spreads are styled with ads in mind- i.e. aa buys ad space in ID. ID features some clothes in their mag. It's called advertorial and it's done all of the time. The more ad space a company buys (ex. outer cover means $$$) the more likely that company's clothes/purse/jewelry will be featured.
 
Posted by: WHAT 8/16/2007  08:19
As a black woman, my first reaction was...WHAT THE HELL!
I really don't know what to think of this ad. My gut tells me this is as shocking as it is racist. I-D and AA knew exactly what they were doing. Way to go with the mouth dropping shock value, but DAMN! I guess I'm comfortted in knowing that the model didn't have to coon, schuck and jive, and yes sir massa. Or did she?
 
Posted by: LG 8/16/2007  09:25
I'm pretty sure the picture does not refer to the American blackface but to racist caricatures that were made of African women during colonial times in Europe. Don't forget that she's wearing a headwrap and that i-D is a brittish magazine.
Anyway, I'm truly deeply offended by this image (see my previous post) and I think both i-D and AA should make public apologies for this racist ad.
 
Posted by: jackie 8/16/2007  11:23
Don't be so stupid. If this picture is racist, then I guess me saying "yo homie" to a black friend of mine is racist of me, since I'm white... oh, sorry, I'll stop interacting with black people altogether. Get serious! Take it for what it is, stop reading into it so much. If you are really that offended by this picture, then you might as well just give up on life right now... cause it gets a lot dirtier than that. Besides, everyone is racist in some fashion... and until everyone comes to terms with that, we'll never move on. Peace
 
Posted by: marcie McCabe 8/16/2007  11:42
ekkk. yeah this picture struck me as racists. just do a general google search of black face propaganda posters for minstrel shows. if her lipstick actually matched her skin tone in some earthy way then it would be more acceptable.
 
Posted by: Intern 4 life 8/16/2007  12:07
If this is actually a racist pic, we first must answer; 1. what stereotypes is it promoting? 2. how does it perpetuate the degradation of black culture?
If anyone can clearly answer this, it would help to define if the pic is actually racist or not.
 
Posted by: hawa 8/16/2007  12:13
So if this isnt an aa ad..isnt it funny how we are all so up in arms about it.What does that say?..that it is ironic that a "black woman" would be featured in one of thier ads, that its black face and not really a black woman or that we realize that there is a complete lack of darker skinned people represented in todays hip/hipster scene.I think i saw an asian or a light skinned black girl..no disrepect but those are easy calls for ad execs..id like to see some balls-and this ad-although not for the clothing line..has balls-way to go..even though still i hate it.Sweeter than candy..yes we are..and better than cake..of-f*&king-course we are..but we're not dessert, we are not a statement, we are people, plain and simple, intricate and complicated-just like everyone else.
 
Posted by: Adam 8/16/2007  12:27
Uh guys. She is wearing bright lipstick to go with the bright clothes and make contrast against her skin. She was probably chosen because the clothes stand out really well on her + she is pretty good looking.

Seriously. Sometimes models for fashion magazines are chosen because their appearance complements their clothes. SHOCK AND ALARM.
 
Posted by: DeB 8/16/2007  12:36
one more stupid question...this is the sep. issue right ?
 
Posted by: ME 8/16/2007  13:09
Maarten - go F**K yourself -

Scroll up to see IGNORANT ass comments poted by this MEGA punk...
Posted by: Maarten 8/16/2007 01:38

Come to HARLEM and say it - A$$HOLE!
 
Posted by: Aha 8/16/2007  14:27
Did anyone ever think that the girl is Gemma Ward in Black Face? Hmm! She has features that could pass as a Colored girl. Remember Kevin Aucoin- He can turn anybody in to whom ever they wanted to be.
 
Posted by: on the level 8/16/2007  14:58
if this model wore a different expression on her face there would be much less commentary. For example; if her pose was leaning forward hand on a hip and smiling brightly into the camera I don't believe many people would have taken such offense, they would see her as a pretty model in cute clothes. The problem with this pose is that she gives the audiance nothing to go off. Whatever one wishes to see in this they will.

It's artistic, but art should still be bound by ethics.
 
Posted by: sensualeye 8/16/2007  16:05
Hawa has the best statement!

Cheers!
 
Posted by: GutterGlitter 8/16/2007  17:05
Ok if the model is of African descent, then why didn't the just let her be natural like the other models. I always admired AA for having models wearing little to no makeup and looking gorgeous. This was really not necessary. Is this just a model wearing AA clothes or an AA ad?
 
Posted by: mike 8/16/2007  19:28
if there was no question that this there are no racist overtones, there wouldnt be 40-some comments posted. this ad harkens back to an earlier time of sambos and blackface. plain and simple. is it racist? bad advertising? I dont know. but it certainly strikes a chord. - the ad is reviewd here:

http://misteriotremendum.sevenandsix.com/2007/08/15/american-apparel-racist/
 
Posted by: caca 8/16/2007  21:51
everyone who says this is racist and a step in the wrong direction or says they are "offended" is fuck1ng ignorant.

get a clue, douchenozzles.
this is beautiful.
 
Posted by: A> 8/17/2007  09:30
This vivid colors are beautiful...

having said that, the racist overtones are ugly. I understand that this image is an AA ad in i-D magazine, but it serves as another reason why I continue to boycott AA clothing. Yes, their ads are "edgy," but they almost always encourage and reinstate sexism and exoticization in their ads, more so than so many ads that use airbrushed models... AA tends to do more damage than their "progessive" tout.

For these reasons I've never bought AA, and never will.
Shucks, I'm not a cool kid, w/the cool kid clothes! Woe is me!
 
Posted by: nunya 8/17/2007  10:37
Christian- "decades ago"? seriously, what America are you living in?

Jackie- that's correct. saying 'yo homie' to your black friend is racist (that is, if you only address your black "friends" this way and not your friends of other ethnicities).

Personally, i have white "friends" that do this and it's quite ignorant and irritating (i use friends in quotes cause i really don't like these people; i simply tolerate them cause we have mutual friends). In general, it appears they do this to nurture an unspoken rapport that simply isn't there and can't be forced into existence.

I assure you if you have black friends and single them out like this, they don't like you regardless of how they act.
 
Posted by: e-ka 8/17/2007  10:54
this is repulsive. how come hipster culture is so obsessed with people of color, specifically black people from the 80's that its rampant and disgusting forms of appropriation go unnoticed and trumpeted as "high fashion" ???
ps, WTF
 
Posted by: Gregory A. Butler 8/17/2007  11:07
You

Have

Got

To

Be

Kidding!!!

A blackface ad?

In 2007?

What's next - "seperate but equal" Jim Crow chanigng rooms in the American Apparel stores?

Disgusting!!!
 
Posted by: Brooklynisis 8/17/2007  11:19
This is not her skin tone is it BLACK makeup people...

Brooklynisis, click on the image.. you can clearly see it's not make-up but her actual skin tone. -Lisa
 
Posted by: manish 8/17/2007  12:52
White people are just stupid when comes to race. It's like the degenerate gambler, addict or alcoholic, cannot be around their tox of choice, same for white people, they should just STFU when it comes to race or go to Race Rehab.
And the comment that everyone is racist is just plain lazy.
 
Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles 8/17/2007  14:04
Sigh...

Many people here have posted that the layout in ID featuring American Apparel clothing is not racist, and that anyone who sees it this way is a racist themselves or too sensitive.

This response comes from an ignorance of history. Images of Black people like the one above were used up until the 1970s in America to sell all types of goods. In America the characters on the packaging were referred to as "Sambos, Pickaninnies, and Coons." In the UK the term was "Golliwog." They were not ment to be flattering. Many Black people know about this history or rememeber seeing these things on store shelves - and do not find this display in ID daring or artistic. Such images still appear on retail goods in many parts of Asia, again reflecting the ignorance of history.

For anyone who cares and would like more information on why people find this offensive, please check out the "Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia" at http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/menu.htm

it saddens me that the editors at ID had no qualms in putting this out there, and that American Apparel is embracing it. Why not bring back the "Frito Bandito" and "Shylock" as long as "we are keeping it real."
 
Posted by: taylor 8/17/2007  14:08
everyone needs to grow up. This is not offensive -- and if you are offended, you obviously hang out with a dearly unedumacated group of followers.
 
Posted by: Liberian girl 8/17/2007  14:59
This ad is really hurtful. As an African woman that wraps her hair. I don't want to be seen as a caricature. Despite the fact that AA rarely uses African models, I have mistakenly purchased their clothes. Whether art or not I don't know, but what it clearly communicates is the continual degredation of black women's images.
 
Posted by: Samira 8/17/2007  18:10
How the hell is this black beauty when the features under the skin are white? The pink-huge lips are reminscent of an uglier period. As usual blackness is so extreme that it borders on the grotesque.

The sense is that white women models are blank canvases for every ethnicity. If you want to celebrate black beauty hire black talent and help them make some ends. You all really need to read some bell hooks and angela y. davis.
 
Posted by: caca 8/17/2007  18:45
i guess the only thing that matters is at least the model was okay with it, so screw all of you who don't know any better.

read what it says next to the model on the actual cover of the magazine and get with it.
 
Posted by: TeeCee 8/17/2007  18:54
This isn't offensive cause AA said so!!!

Get the fuck out of here with that garbage!! I'm a black woman and I DO NOT find this add anything but a caricature. You can still be black and be in blackface. I know black people that shuck and jive all the time, so save it.

Posted by: Christian 8/15/2007 19:30 ---- I don't know where your head is (probably up your ass) but the racist america of decades ago is still here. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that many of the comments that are made in favour of this ad are NOT black.

I get it, contrast of colours, blah blab blah...could have done that without the bright pink lips. I bet her natural lip colour is gorgeous, but instead you go with something that is obviously a throw back to a time when you could take the piss out of black people to their faces (now it's just down on the low)

AA, I-D magazine...you lose.
 
Posted by: notright 8/18/2007  01:13
This ad is not clever, it's not profound. It's simply offensive, crass and racist.

Please stop patting yourselves on the back, this ad has 0 artistic merit. You've just lost a customer and I will make sure to let everyone know of your support of racist bullshit.
 
Posted by: mikeh 8/18/2007  08:57
I also think it's funny that of the maybe two aa ads I have seen featuring black models this is one of them. Maybe I wouldn't have thought it so strange if there were more black models employed by aa, but because they get so little representation in the modeling ranks of this company, highlighting such a racially provocative ad just seems strange, no?

Check out my review of the ad at:
http://misteriotremendum.sevenandsix.com/2007/08/15/american-apparel-racist/
 
Posted by: jackie 8/18/2007  13:46
I said "black friends" because I was making an example to try and make a point... nice try though, you almost know how to argue... almost. You probably assumed that I'm white based on my comment, too... check out that irony.

My wife is 100% puerto rican and we're happily having a mixed-race child... life is awesome.

Also to the person who never buys AA and "never will," why the hell are you posting on the daily update blog? Weirdo
 
Posted by: Natalie 8/18/2007  15:47
There is nothing remotely artistic about this ad. Of all the angles to build upon blackface was the only option? I find that hard to believe... way to go corporate america!
 
Posted by: Tatum 8/19/2007  09:36
What the fudge is up with this ad? She looks like a gollywog! Why do designers insist on making dark skinned models provide contrast to their product? Why can't they simply wear the clothes? You can be high-fashion without resorting to blackface on a black person, which makes not even an iota of sense.
 
Posted by: FUAA 8/20/2007  08:52
Racism intended or not, I find this ad offensive, and as a black woman making 6 figures, I will NOT EVER purchase another item from AA. They don't deserve my hard-earned money for this BS. And besides, their cheap cotton crap doesn't even last for two washings/dry cleanings.
 
Posted by: Ani 8/20/2007  09:55
Marely, they sell scarves at American Apparel. She has SCARVES on her head not leggins. We Do promote headdresses... check out the scarf video on the online store, they show you how to wrap it around your head.. along with about 86 other styles with that same scarf. get over yourself or at least check your facts before you say something so silly. Do you really think that Dov Charney wants to get girls to potrray blackface? Yes I really think that was the intention. If her eyes didn't look so dead, the editorial would look a lot less like what you guys think
 
Posted by: maria 8/20/2007  11:47
i am a black female and a supporter of everything aa stands for, however i cant help notice that models featured in their ads are of the caucasion persuasion (a high percentage anyway). i have to say that i found the imaging of the black model quite disturbing as it reminds me of the very negative and disrespectful gollywog character. in this day and age you would think that the media play a more responsible role in portraying black as serious human
beings. stop the ridicule.
 
Posted by: fathima 8/20/2007  12:46
to recap:
- unnatural makeup in a shoot for a store that promotes makeup-free models
- horribly dead eyes in a shoot for a store that likes its models to look at viewers directly in the face
- turbans in a shoot for a store that does not sell headgear
- most damning of all, a history in both the UK and the US of demeaning depictions of blackface, depictions that involve all of the characteristics above
- all this for a store that has not, as far as i know, featured black women in their ads ever before. when did they decide that they that'd make a point (and which?) with black skin?
 
Posted by: Renee 8/20/2007  21:22
How is this racist....has it crossed anyones mind that she could actually be this color? and its just emphasized by the colors?

This is a BEAUTIFUL shot!
 
Posted by: Erika 8/21/2007  14:07
...Racist? I can see that. Ugly ad? Definitely. Beautiful woman, though, despite the horrid ("artsy") paint and makeup.
 
Posted by: Shavonne 8/21/2007  16:13
Um...people...it's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!

This was a page in i-D magazine of their OWN design and creation. Why are you implying that AA had anything to do with this other than being the featured garments in the article?

I assume DU featured this because it's a pretty unique way to wear leggings.
 
Posted by: Joe 8/22/2007  04:56
Anyone who thinks this isn't blackface, anyone who thinks this isn't racist, and anyone who thinks this is beautiful, go rent the movie "Bamboozled" TODAY, view it, and then tell me that this ad isn't blackface, that it isn't racist, and that it isn't dehumanizing.
 
Posted by: Michael 8/22/2007  06:39
This is disgusting. I was going to buy some new underwear, but no way now.
 
Posted by: Ravenelvenlady 8/22/2007  07:09
Simply reprehensible.
 
Posted by: mike 8/22/2007  08:38
to all the white folks whining "you don't get it! it's not racist!", shut your ignorant mouths. you don't know a damn thing about racism.
 
Posted by: Micah 8/22/2007  08:52
I'm disgusted that AA is touting this spread on their website. I'm more disgusted by the slew of commenters accusing the offended commenters of African descent of being ignorant, over-sensitive, stupid, and/or racist. Seriously? It's not up to white people to declare themselves non-racist. That assessment is best left to the people experiencing the racism. I think the number of posts by black women articulately stating how and why they found this shot offensive should be eveidence enough that the ad is problematic.
 
Posted by: micah 8/22/2007  09:08
Jackie, that commenter assumed you were white because you said this: ". . .since I'm white"
Being married to a Puerto Rican woman does not grant you a "get out of racism free" card, as made clear by your comments. As evidenced by an earlier comment, your use of the word "homie" for your black friends is viewed as racist and/or appropriation. I fail to see, however, how your claim that your friends do not explicitly condemn your language validates your assertion that the above photo, which clearly recalls historically loaded imagery, does not merit these accusations of racism.
If you feel that "everyone is racist in some fashion", but stick to your declaration that those who are offended by this ad and your comments are "stupid", are you suggesting that racism will be overcome by. . . what? ignoring it? Embracing images and behaviors that people of color find degrading, offensive, and oppressive?
I'm dying to know how engaging in active dialogue about if, how, and why this image is felt to be racist is, in your opinion, counter-productive in fighting racism.
 
Posted by: BR 8/22/2007  09:18
To all of the folks saying this ad isn't racist: Maybe you should listen to the people who are responding who are negatively impacted on a daily basis by racism-

The people of color all seem to be agreeing-this is racist.

That means it's racist. There's nothing to argue about here. Trusting someone's experience goes a long way, folks. And to those who say that we have to 'move past' racism, and that the people who see it as racist are the racists for even noticing race-

http://whiteprivilege.com/definition/

As far as those people stating that AA had nothing to do with this ad-Please read Michelle's post at 7:41. That's how advertising works. On top of that, AA is in full support of this ad-if it weren't it wouldn't be here on there website, rather they'd be out making a fuss at the magazine and doing PR against it.
 
Posted by: Kat 8/22/2007  12:05
She looks like she's about to be sold. This is a horrible photograph - and while it may not be an actual ad for AA, they liked it enough to put it on their website.

Racist, racist, racist - although maybe it's a nice change of pace from sexist, sexist, sexist. That's sarcasm, for anyone who might want to take me seriously.
 
Posted by: sarah 8/22/2007  18:06
you have to love how american apparel has managed to make sexism and racism trendy. no wonder people's first response when american apparel is mentioned is what oppressive thing have they done now
 
Posted by: CACA 8/22/2007  18:10
it really hurts my brain trying to wrap my head arround how completely ignorant most of the people responding to this are.

this bitch is NOT IN BLACK FACE. SHE IS DARK. GET OVER IT.

since when is it racist to imply (or, in the iD's case, display) that people of colour look FUCK1NG AMAZING with bright, vibrant colours?

this colour scheme would NOT have flown well with a white girl, and not a one of you can argue that.

i don't even see the argument behind arguing.. f%#$@g pointless.

to in turn take this and see it as "racist" and a product of american apparel's stance on its views of ethnicity and the colour of someone's skin is completely ludicrous and nonsensical.. or, in laymen's terms, utterly moronic.

i will sit here and call you all retarded until this post gets old, but hopefully i won't have to.. i've got a life, you know?

now do yourselves a favour and get one for yourselves, morons.
 
Posted by: Shavonne 8/22/2007  18:57
Again...I imagine AA posted this because it's an awfully unique way to wear their leggings.

I hope everyone is writing i-D with their comments. Since they were the ones who created this layout in the first place...
 
Posted by: TeeCee 8/23/2007  08:28
Posted by: CACA 8/22/2007 18:10

it really hurts my brain trying to wrap my head arround how completely ignorant most of the people responding to this are.

this bitch is NOT IN BLACK FACE. SHE IS DARK. GET OVER IT.

--------------------

"The bitch is not in blackface..." Nice use of words. Your comments and thoughts have no merit.

What you don't get is it's not the fact that she's dark, but the fact that she is made up in a way that represents a period of time that is hurtful to many people.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that you are completely clueless to exactly what this imagery portrays.

Once again, YOU CAN BE BLACK AND STILL BE IN BLACKFACE!!!
 
Posted by: jon 8/23/2007  10:01
im black and my white girlfriend works at a restaurant called "Sambo's" here in Santa Barbara. Am i bummed? yea. but she makes a whole lot of money and brings me food. That's all.
 
Posted by: a model idiot 8/23/2007  13:10
so anytime there's make up on a model that makes her skin tone different, its racist?!? this model doesn't seem to give a fuck, so why should you.
 
Posted by: Adam 8/23/2007  14:22
The problem here is that people are arguing about two different things.

1. Is this image potentially hurtful because of associations that it calls up?

2. Was this image made to intentionally reference racist historical aesthetics.

I have no doubt that the first is true, given what's been said. But the part where people, no doubt offended, are angry enough to say that it was intentional - that's ridiculous. Because I-D clearly will sell more magazines if black people - and others who care about these things hate them. Clearly.

If white people have to accept that black people are offended, everybody has to accept that nobody can judge the I-D editorial team's intentions, and that this piece was definitely put together for the colour contrast with the garments and the echo of that in the lipstick.

I-D magazine and AA are not out to victimize you, no matter what you might think. Really. I'm sure that whoever was responsible for the image will probably feel at least a little bit bad if/when they learn that they offended people.
 
Posted by: Gemini 8/23/2007  16:16
I have a couple questions, if anybody can give me a legitimate and logical explanation, then I'm ok with the ad.

1. Why is this photo considered high fashion? When did AA become a high-end fashion retailer???

2. Also, what does "Sweeter than candy. Better than cake." have to do with AA, high fashion or fashion in general?
 
Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles  8/23/2007  17:18
Couple of things, adding on to my earlier post on the 8/17.

The model's name is Sasha Gaye Hunt. For the people who have written claiming that the layout shows the unaltered skin tone of a dark skinned model (a la Alek Wek) can toss out that garbage. She was darkened quite a bit for this layout - the question is why? What is the symbolism here by darkening her up and wrapping her head in a Hattie McDaniel fashion? What are the words "Sweeter than candy/Better than cake" supposed to mean? It appears that the editors at i-D were fully aware of what they were doing and it's impact.

Here's a link to a profile of the model Sasha Hunt...
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/sasha_hunt/
 
Posted by: s 8/23/2007  21:39
Im so offended I have no words.
 
Posted by: Sarah 8/24/2007  00:07
As a black woman who has spent several hundred dollars on AA I have to say I am severely dissapointed with this article. It's very clearly a play on early colonialist/imperialist blackface and golliwog characters. It's freakin' 2007 for Jeebus sake!

When does this end? When will I stop being reminded of all the crap me and mine have been put through simply for having dark skin? I guess I am more sorry that I expected more from this company. I can't begin to fathom how or why they would want to be associated with this image.

Perhaps they just want to let us blackies know we are still just as inferior. God forbid we forget.

At this point the only way I would ever, ever spend my money on AA again is if I saw an actual influx of black models in their ads and website. AA seems to think only whites and asians exist. If you can't feature people who look like me OTHER THAN IN BLACKFACE, then I can go spend my cash elsewhere. Clearly you do not want my money.

Shame on you for milking this racist article for publicity and showing it off to the world with pride.
 
Posted by: AJ 8/24/2007  07:33
Okay......as a fashionista, the colors are beautiful and i could even see this artwork. As a black woman, it brings back painful memories of "blackface" because that character was used to poke fun of our features not to encourage them. You see, this ad is like taking something that's wrong/bad and making it something positive. Which i equate to blacks taking the "n" word and turning it into something positive. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!
 
Posted by: ericka 8/24/2007  08:23
What the HELL? Has American Apparel & I-D Magazine Truly lost their minds? This mess is floating all around the blogosphere and black women(myself included) are not impressed, sickened by what these people consider to be "art" and we're not stupid..everyone should know the relation of the "black face" with out right racism. I will definitely not be supporting American Apparel and I hope that those who feel the same way will not either...get it together people! I am so tired of corporate execs getting away wih this sort of thing and calling it "art"...
 
Posted by: 70ssoulchild 8/24/2007  09:27
I'm amazed that people find this beautiful! It looks like a golliwog that you Brits seem to love and can't get enough of. Wow how insensitive to portray a derogatory caricature of a black person as "high fashion". Go back and read up on the history of "black face" and you'll come to know that its still "black face" even on a black person and offensive ALL the time.
 
Posted by: Richard White 8/24/2007  10:51
I'm a little concerned that I don't know what the 'Advertorial' text that goes with the image says and very disappointed that not one of the people commenting have re-printed it. I expect that it might clear up some of the argument.

i-D was a pretty interesting and ground breaking magazine back in the day. Now that 'street fashion' is couture; I expect it's as full of shit as all the rest.

I can't imagine Dylan Jones (the original editor) letting anything as obviously polemical to be included unless there was a very clear point to it.

Whatever that point might be, I'm pretty sure it's being made by White British men and women (I doubt there are many more Black women working at i-D than there appear, from the comments, to be Black women models appearing in AA adverts), who are very unlikely to have more than the vaguest understanding or empathy for the feelings of anyone outside of what they consider to be the 'ironically' sophisticated, self-referential mutual-masturbation that stands in for inteligence and integrity in the fashion industry.

I am of the opinion that something is racist if it attempts to engender the continuance of negative racial stereotypes. I don't know that the intention of this is image is to do that. It might be possible that the intention of the image when accompanied by the text could be a direct attempt to say something very damning about the way in which black people are portrayed. But somehow I doubt this.

What is clear is that many people find this image extremely offensive. I'm not personally offended by it, but I am unhappy at the injury other people have experienced seeing it. I don't understand it. I don't think the model looks happy. I don't like the colours or the 'look'. In fact the whole thing is, to me, so unappealing that I assumed upon first seeing it that it was intended as some sort of critique. Perhaps some sort of commentary on the indenturing that the fashion industry continues to perpetrate in order to sell shoddy clothes cheaply in a continual cycle of consumerist consumption.

However, I doubt that's the case. In which case, this image is simply hurtful and, if not Racist by intent, is certainly racist by omission.

BTW: I came upon this story here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigkitten/1207729392/

- and for the record I am a 48 year old White British Male.
 
Posted by: Richard White 8/24/2007  11:03
Right, well I've just discovered that one can click on the image above and read the text.

It seems pretty unambiguous; she is intended to be a Golliwog, something that as a child I certainly took to my heart and bed, if not wardrobe.

Really quite unbelievable. Actually, unfortunately, not unbelievable at all. Just another in an endless stream of thoughtlessness.
 
Posted by: Angie 8/24/2007  12:21
yeah..this is the link to the model in the pic: http://www.style.com/peopleparties/modelsearch/thumb/person3570
for all of you who did not do your research before assuming that her skin is this color naturally...As a black woman, I can understand from histories events why many of your here may not see this as racist..but it most definitely is not needed to darken her skin(there are plenty of dark skinned models, but I guess they needed one quick) wrap her head like "mami" and paint her lips pink...be honet..this photo is no different from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickaninny These people knew what they were accentuating through the lens!!!!
 
Posted by: tamsin lo 8/24/2007  12:22
first of, i love fashion but i don't believe that fashion is fashion when it starts incorporating hurtful and humiliating themes, and come-on, we are all familiar with images which are more or less like this, and fact is, in 2007, they are still hurtful and are very sensitive. If you think about it, this isn't different from making a fashion add whereby the theme is on concentration camps....mmmm...
secondly, there is a clear difference between black-face and black models.
makes me think twice now about whether to buy your merchandice American Apparel. You are treading on thin ice.
 
Posted by: Felicia 8/24/2007  14:23
I'm digging it. I'm a "black" woman and I like it. I think it's pretty. It's amazing that people assume that this is racist. I'm digging the leggings worn on the head as I am growing my hair out naturally and wear a lot of head scarves. Obviously the people that do not like the ad and says it's a negative portrayal are basically saying dark skin is ugly. I don't see anything minstrel about this. THe chic isn't shucking and jiving. My question is "what would they have to gain in trying to be racist?"

I'm sorry, call me an "Uncle Tom" but I don't get it. I thought black was suppose to be beautiful. We are acting like our own dark skin is negative. Like I said above, I wear my hair with the headdress am I being racist?

And for the person saying that she has white features, she has human features. Are you assuming that black people automatically have big lips and big noses? I don't have either of those. THe world is too global to say white or black features.
 
Posted by: Killerbee Collective 8/24/2007  18:14
This was obviously a racist image. The model is some neo-mammy mixed with enough jezebel to make her sexy and exotic. That is not the model's natural skin tone, and the blackface of course adds to the racist aspect. And lest we forget: there is the text. Sweeter than Candy/Better than Cake. A lyric from the song Popsicle by New Kids On The Block, placed right above her cleavage, the sexual undertones can not be missed.
 
Posted by: caca 8/24/2007  18:45
i did do my "research" actually.
this isn't sasha hunt.. she just happens to be named sasha.
sorry to burst your bubble, dudes.. over it yet?

i sure am!!
 
Posted by: Pissed! 8/24/2007  22:20
I was really into American Apparel & i-D magazine but this is absolutely HORRID!!!

common to run an ad, I'm sure you all have people you check this with, this cannot obviously be a mistake. In such times when people are sensitive, call it art or whatever it's still not cool. Why not make pants out of mean words, or cute confederate shirts. Get my drift, for a company, that spends money on advertising U really don't seem to care right now.


Its really nice to now that u acknowledge our feelings, and u plan to convey our sentiments, but did i miss the line about apologizing for such??

And to some ppl that are not aware, black actors have been made to be painted darker, u dont have to be white to play blackface or whatever.


I'll stand the sexism, and slight porno, but just throwing racism in our faces assuming we wouldn't notice it, is just sad. AA it's just ure outfit so u're not fully responsible. but u were so proud u put it on ure site. & i-D never in my life am I gonna get another copy!!! AA u might not care, but u're being warned by most. I guess Tommy & Crystal survived!
 
Posted by: SIGH 8/24/2007  23:32
black is beautiful!!!!

BUT why was she MADE darker??????? is she not dark or black enough!!!

TO: Felicia8/24/2007 14:23
no one is talking about the clothes!!! (though some have issues with AA but thats a different issue)

& no one is talking about her hair.

BUT THAT SHE WAS PAINTED DARKER & HER LIPS PINK WHICH WAS USED TO REPRESENT BLACKFACE.

all ppl are saying is that they should have been a bit more sensitve.
 
Posted by: Tony Blackstone 8/25/2007  20:48
This ad is not only highly insulting it's a strongly convincing to the black community that AA does not want African American dollars!
 
Posted by: Kim 8/26/2007  11:14
This picture hurts me. I just think of the people they use to scoff at when doing black face caricature. Then the caption....this is not ideal.
Note: this is not her complection.Her face is painted. They used to paint white people in black face and poke fun at blacks and make sterotypes of their ignorance when they werent allowed an education.
This isnt right
 
Posted by: erm... 8/27/2007  14:25
still not an aa ad.
 
Posted by: Kelly 8/27/2007  15:09
Media! There's no problem with it? Thre's no problem with degrading and offending people if it's all in the name of money and freedom of expression etc.? I also suppose paparazzi chasing people down to get a photo makes for creative and artistic photos in the end. THEY (and we all know who I'm referring to) are going too far. Intern 4 life will probably remain an intern for life. YOU people are sick (and I'm sure you all know who I'm referring to). It's obvious that diabolical ways are also beginning to tear apart and destroy white america. It's amazing to see people who once had so much, sink so low to their own demise.
 
Posted by: ShayShay 8/28/2007  07:09
Its not so much blackface as it is a dark girl in a hideous shade of lipstick. She looks really ashy too. All the colors would look good on her skin if she didn't seem like she'd been sprinkled in flour first.
 
Posted by: volcano 8/28/2007  11:01
I'm going to say that she has huge boobs. hooray for large boobs!
 
Posted by: rick rude 8/28/2007  22:43
I don't believe AA that this isn't an ad, why is their logo featured? it seems like they were in on this -shit-

really bad taste, not intelligent.
 
Posted by: FC 8/29/2007  12:16
why isn't it enough to have a beautiful woman who is black portrayed with her own beautiful skin, instead of demeaning a race of people, again! when is enough, enough?! is this the only way this model could get the job, painted ridiculous pink lipstick, are you kidding me?
this doesn't celebrate anything good about this nation or any of its people. to say that this pic is offensive is such an understatement. would we be making a mockery of the Holocoust or any other human defamation? i think not.
 
Posted by: SoulonFya 8/29/2007  12:25
Look into this deeper and you'll see the bullshit.
What's the difference between this and that
 
Posted by: Smibonie 8/30/2007  12:57
This picture isn't close to black beauty. Also beauty is happy and pleasant. She looks sad and SOLD! AA could have taken a different approach with this. She looks like she's straight from Africa. Blacks are world wide. I'm from the Caribbean’s and my family doesn't look like that. Intern 4 Life said it shows the essence of black beauty. Well beauty is natural, and so is black. This picture is far from it. It's Paint! All I can say to AA is first they need to start with the basics of my culture and people by using the REAL DEAL.
 
Posted by: Ummm 9/01/2007  20:46
Wow! All this talk about a picture.
And I thought the image was HOT!
Maybe I'm not black enough to see the racism? Or to complain about it? But since my fellow race members hate it, I guess it should hate it as well. Or at least keep my affections for the image to myself.
I'm still wearing AA though!
 
Posted by: JWest 9/01/2007  22:00
As disgusting as this ad is, the attitude that many commenters are making are even more offensive. How easy it is to knock someone else for being offended when you've never faced racism before in your life. When you live a world of life privilege.

Maybe for the next layout, they can throw some shackles on her! Perhaps use one of those wraps to hang her from a tree! That would really be "high fashion"! (sarcasm).

Will never, ever shop at AA again, they're obviously proud of this feature since they're displaying it on their site.
 
Posted by: herrde 9/02/2007  11:43
Erm this Model is in blackface White entertainers would often paint their faces with black makeup and proceed to caricature black people using hurtful stereotypes. This isn't about beautifull colours and contrast this image is attempting to be contraversial but is infact degrading and is racist and in poor taste - nuff said if you dont know what im talking about google/wikipedia blackface and see for yourself
 
Posted by: BeBrown 9/03/2007  15:04
I really like this picture and I don't think its at all racist! One of the reasons I like AA is they are not afraid to be bold and just let people wear the clothes. There are no models that have been touched up to look thinner or prettier. They embrace every flaw on the human body. It makes me feel a bit better knowing how the clothes will actually fit and look when i go to purchase a few pieces. Black is beautiful!
 
Posted by: smh 9/05/2007  14:29
@CACA if she's not Sasha Hunt and you did your research so who is she?
@ SMIBONNIE, she looks like she's out of Africa? that's a really ignorant statement. Funny how black on black hate shows up.
 
Posted by: adrian 9/07/2007  02:39
Wow a fashion photograph that can still create such a debate.
Probably the most interesting Photo to appear in I-D for a very long time, and yes it kind of does make a change from the stereotypical size 0 blond smack head models that are churned out every other week.
Keep it up I-D.
 
Posted by: Disgusted 9/09/2007  03:25
Such terrible taste.
And racist...whether it was intentional or not does not matter.
What's even sadder than this blackface ad are those who like the photo.
You should be ashamed that your company name is even associated with an image that has been used (and obviously continues to) degrade black people for years.
Still ignorant as to why people are reacting so angrily? Here's a bit of pictoral history: http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-id-magazine/
 
Posted by: Amadee Braxton 9/14/2007  10:52
It may not be an American Apparel ad, but the commentary appears to be written by an American Apparel employee touting how great and cutting edge AP is. Are you suggesting that that AP had NOTHING to do with this? That is hard to believe, given that your advertising approach in general is degrading to women.
 
Posted by: jj 9/22/2007  04:20
I love this image. When was the last time you saw a whole page dedicated to a beautiful black women in American or itallian vouge??? Surely that is rasism, not this image. I live in london but was born in Paris and as a black model I have never felt more free with my identity. I wish some one would hire me for a shoot like this! I'm not supprised Americans don't understand our culture they are not sophisticated enough. Well done to ID.
 
Posted by: Dee in Atl 10/22/2007  08:36
As a black woman, jj, I'm surprised that you think there's nothing wrong with this image. I don't think you understand OUR history. You can't be totally ignorant of racism that still exists today. Even in your sophisticated Paris Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a boutique! You seem very naive, so I don't doubt that you believe the lie about the problems with North Africans as an excuse for turning her away. Grow up!
 
Posted by: nunyadbidnez 10/22/2007  19:59
LOL - Naomi Campbell the most famous black brittish model ever is crying to be on the cover of Brittish Vogue, and there are people out there who pretend to believe that this is something other than what it is. Oppression, can only be defined by the oppressed. So all of you none black people who have an opinion about whether or not this is racist, shut up. Imagine if a man presupposed to tell a woman what a sexual assault felt like?!? Get over it. It ain't your issue. Shut up and listen.
 
Posted by: Larrie King 10/23/2007  14:41
Why would anyone think this is racist? It's a beautiful photo of a beautiful woman.
 
Posted by: Offended 11/01/2007  15:50
this is awful, as an African American woman, I can tell you we don't think it's cute or "culture" this is very very offensive and tacky...NOT HIGH FASHION AT ALL!!!!!!
 
Posted by: jen 11/13/2007  06:58
For people who think that this model is actually this dark, take a look at the rim of her eyes and you can clearly see that she was painted with black body paint. If they wanted to show a color contrast all they had to do was to get a model that was truly darkskinned and that would have been great. And instead of clownish bright pink lips they could have played up her eyes with some HIP colors from revlon. Like someone said before the way she was asked to pose is remenisant of those old depictions. Her eyes are completely dead. I just don't understand it, this is so offensive. And for people who think that it's not racist i'm guessing they're mainly not black, just try to step out of your little box for one second and really imagine if this was the history of the degradation of YOUR people. Them using a beautiful model for this ad does not make it ok. It's embarrassing. And I don't even have a problem with the headdress because being a New Yorker I've seen all differnent races of people who assimilate this style. It's the BLACK FACE refence that is so offensive and hurtful.
 
Posted by: sarah 11/22/2007  09:25
hideous
 
Posted by: james k 11/22/2007  10:02
I.D= OVER
 
Posted by: Cat 11/30/2007  06:10
Reading so many of these postings, I am both discusted and empowered. To the people on this page denying any affiliation between this picture and blackface... I can only laugh at your ignorance becasue you are an embarrassment to yourself if you are that unaware of your own countries history. Blackface minstresly was the first American popular stage culture throught the 1800's. The black woman and the black man were represented on the minstrel stage without ever setting foot on the stage until the late 1860's when black actors could only get acting jobs as minstrel performers. If you also think that this pale charcoal/ tar color is her real skin color... you obviously dont know many black people or have any black friends (chuckle). This color is far too pale to be any persons skin color unless it is a post-mortem picture. I agree with FC... why isnt it enough to portray her in her own black skin... why does she need to be painted? In blackface minstrelsy... painting was a psychological way of masking the true person beneath the burnk cork. It didnt matter whether or not the person was actually black becasue for 50 years the person under the cork was white. What mattered was the creation of the stereotype. What mattered was representing the sexualization of the black woman. This was all a deliberate act to defend slavery, as blackface minstrelsy came about in the 1820's-1830's when politicians began discussing the possibility of abolishing slavery. For you ignorant ones out there... slavery was abolished in 1864... 30-40 years after minstrelsy began. The slave woman was a sexual object and not to mention the slave law at the time stated that a child was born a slave if its mother was a slave. This law made it legal for slave owners to rape slaves and then have thier child become his legal property. Blackface representations sexualized the black woman becasue as it was defending slavery it reminded white audience members where a black woman belonged... as his sexual conquest and the mother of his plantation. He didnt respect her... her didnt love her... he used her. The black woman's body represented financial investment for the white slave owner. On the blackface stage she wasnt just sexualized... she was also stupid... and had a strange beauty aesthic.. including huge lips and big feet. In minstrel songs the black woman's lips were actually so big she could swallow the world. Does this sound sexual to you? hmmm, lets think. It all goes back to her as a sex object. In this picture we can see her voluptuous cleaveage. The line on this picture is obviously a take on " the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice." Apparently she is edible. She is not a respected strong woman. She is a delightful treat that one can enjoy then throw away. To my strong sisters and educated folk on this site... Thank you for speaking the truth.
To everyone else read Eric Lott's "Love and Theft" to educate yourself on the subject of blackface minstrely seeing as though black history is American history.
 
Posted by: Re 12/06/2007  14:38
As an Black male I think the Ad is racist. I guess some white people will never understand the effect rascism has had and still have over people of African descent.
 
Posted by: austin 1/25/2008  11:26
to those that do not understand the historical context of this photo, do not be fooled. Black face was a practice that started with white performers. they would paint their skin black, and exagerate big, pink lips. i have never seen any person with black skin or huge pink lips. eventually, black actors were hired to degrade themselves, so it makes it no better that she is black. we would have to darken our skin and exagerate our lips. The history of this is too much to ignore, and it's very disheartening that so many of you can call this a beautiful or artistic image. it is not that. i another reminder of injustice and hate
 
Posted by: Anne  1/28/2008  20:13
Not many people know what happened with black face, me as a theater major take great offense to that. I'm 15 and I have studied about black face for a year or two, and have known about it for years, I am an African American, and black face made fun of African Americans in a dirty way. In black faced cartoons, you would see how they made Blacks dirty, and inhuman, for anyone who disagrees with my youthful opinion or thinks I'm too young for any opinion I suggest you watch "Bamboozled", then you might change you're mind about this. How can someone even dare to do this, they say art is in the eye of the beholder, and through my eyes this is doing nothing but ridicule this beautiful young lady.
 
Posted by: bobabe 1/29/2008  15:51
EWwWwW
 
Posted by: Sumgai 3/12/2008  23:47
beautiful execution with the ugliest of intentions
 
Posted by: B 3/13/2008  04:19
don't be fooled by AA, every ad is carefully planned out. the placement of the words, the headdress, the fact that she's showing so much cleavage and it says "american apparel is 10 years old..." right next to her. this is a blatant exploitation of racist and exoticisized images.
it's terrible and disgusting and a reason why i've never shopped there.
 
Posted by: Indiyar 3/31/2008  11:34
im not a huge fan of this ad at all.
many people that i know have found this extremely offensive as this was how black people were portrayed, when we know as a fact that they dont look like that. although it is nice to see a black model in the magazine. it is very over the top.
 
Posted by: Anna 3/31/2008  16:46
Why is anyone on here insisting we DON'T think about the picture so much??? How about you sit in front of your t.v. and believe every word you hear on the news too? Fashion is a completely superficial layer of this photograph, why would that be the only thing one considers when seeing it?! (I go to a very competitive art college, I know a thing or two about controversy and vulgarity). Regarding only the clothes is completely ignorant! Here's a suggestion, go on Wikipedia and search "blackface" (I'm making it easy for you, you don't actually have to leave your home or anything). Try and educate yourselves on your own terms for once...

Knowledge is a weapon, kill yourself.
 
Posted by: stephanie 4/05/2008  16:33
I am a black woman and a young artist. I do believe this picture did not have the best judgement, yet, I do not believe it was meant out of racial prejudice or humour.

Much like John Lennon's "Woman is Nigger of the World", a song that relates the racism toward african americans/ africans to woman and gender specific issues, this was a miss.

I believe in the world we live in now, one that has exisitng racism and but contemporary rejection of it, that the blurred lines of what is exceptable is far to hard to control.

So like the song, I do not beleive the creator (in this case i-D) is racist or had those intentions, but they must be aware of the offense much can take.

I also find it odd that a woman dressed in African clothes is being seen offensive, despite the model. Those are not Mammy clothes, but a contemporary look of African girls back in Africa, with a Western twist. I am part Nigerian and have friends from Africa, and they style themselves like this. Head wraps do not equate Mammy. Yes, the lips do look blackface, and I found it garish, but contrast it striking, which i beleive was the want of the stylist.

So approve the phot, not really sure, but in no way would I condemn it.
 
Posted by: rs 4/10/2008  00:58
even if it is her skin tone it is still reminiscent of black face. ive seen several ads with african american females with pink lipstick (covergirl) or of runway models and never once did i stop and think, hey this is offensive to me. with this ad i did. its just strange anyways. if racism wasn't their intention, didnt they at least stop to think hmm..this ad looks really stupid.

and what the hell does sweeter than candy better than cake mean? i dont eat tacky ass american apparel clothing and i sure as hell dont eat pink lipstick. i didnt need to see her cleavage either.

this is such a cheap way to advertise. basically what they are saying is "Hey target audience! All you want to see are sexualized models (some of whom dont even look 18!), boring clothes that lack any facet of individuality, and quotes that dont make any damn sense! Come buy our clothes!"

sheesh, explain to me why i should buy your clothes instead of showing some depressed girl with her tatters hanging out and other semi-pornographic /voyeuristic adverts.

and you know what american apparel, it may not be your ad, but your name is on it. that makes you responsible. thats like saying "no i didnt hit that small child with my car but i was in the passenger seat fiddling with the radio and screaming at the driver and lighting fireworks. but dear god i wasnt the one in the drivers seat!!!!"

rouge sang
 
Posted by: Taylor 4/10/2008  06:57
this picture will send the wrong message....
 
Posted by: black woman! 4/17/2008  19:06
Oh quit your fucking complaining. I'M BLACK AND THIS IS HOTT!

Bravo AA
 
Posted by: Kimi  4/29/2008  12:01
I believe this is a beautiful representation of a dark-skinned woman wearing fashionable clothing. I wish more clothing lines would embrace more ethnic fashion. Yes, her lipstick is very bright - but it accentuates her full and wonderful lips (that many Americans pay good money to get).

Is this art any less controversial from the fashion trend of white girls wearing dramatically dark and messy eye makeup - which sometimes makes them look like crackhead hookers? When done in a tasteful manner, anything can be art. Incorrectly, it becomes trashy. To me, it would be offensive if she were pictured in rags. This photo shows that we have come a long way from not being able to afford such nice clothing. It was not too long ago that a major retail store such as A&F discriminated against people of color - were you guys offended by that? I am proud to see others who look like me now working in those stores.

I look forward to seeing more tastefully beautiful pictures of models of all colors. You guys should be, too.
 
Posted by: Derek 4/29/2008  12:59
Regardless of this model's ethnicity, this is fucking racist and offensive.

Even if this were a FUBU ad, it promotes imagery that should offend people of every race.

Why don't we just give her some watermelon and fried chicken? And malt liquor? Oh what the hell, we're an edgy magazine, let's just put a noose in the background, too!

Fucking sad. And sick.
 
Posted by: Laura 5/21/2008  02:33
Re: "but she's black!!!" comments:

The model's name is Sasha Gaye Hunt. She is black, but her skin is nowhere near as dark as it is in the photo. They painted her skin to be darker that it actually is, and it makes this editorial absolutely appalling.
 
Posted by: Juston 6/17/2008  01:56
it's not blackface just because she has pink lips. GET A GRIP people. this model IS black.
 
Posted by: Genevieve 7/17/2008  14:52
Blackface isn't just black face when a white performer wears it, you ass. It's about presenting blacks and African features in an extremely exaggerated light. A blackface performer could be black or white but it was and remains a testament to hateful racism. This woman is not presented how she would see herself but rather how someone who does not have darker skin sees her. Or least, the editorial and the person who designed it think it's appropriate to show blackface. Blackface completely manipulates how whites and blacks see blackness.
It's apparent that you are not black and additionally that if you have any black friends, you must clearly say things that make them wince or make them glad that other black people aren't around.
 
Posted by: Love_being_FEIRCE! 8/06/2008  14:54
I'm sorry but the damn girl looks ugly! I don't see anything high fashion in this at all... maybe if it was a photo of Alek Wek then i'd be happy because we all know alek wek is feirce, but THIS???!!!

You can see it in the girls face that she's not even happy at all to take the photo shoot!
 
Posted by: Belinda 8/12/2008  13:57
Look people, magazines indeed have freedom to portray what they want and so does an Ad Agency and so does a clothing company. That said, let's also pretend this is not what it is supposed to convey: a caricature of the old Golliwog, Black Sambo characters that many schoolchildren's books were illustrated it with. Yes, there are very dark black women, yes some black women have pink lips - but this exxaggerated. And her mood, her demeanor - passive, removed. If you know anything of photography - even fashion photography, it is all about subtext. If you think advertising does not have a gimmick or an agenda, tehn you know nothing of the countless meetings that take place in the boardroom of Ad agencies. Yes, there is an agenda here and yes it is an unfortunate portrayal of a blakc woman - a very subtly negative one. Does the company have the right to portray it? Yes. Do black woman have the right to be mad? Yes. As I would imagine an Asian woman would be upset if she was portrayed with exxagerated teeth and features as in early Hollywood portrayals of Asians. Let's be honest and real here. It is very American to be so.
 
Posted by: josefa 11/06/2008  21:17
hot pic..!! african beauty..!!