I don't see any situation where blackface is appropriate.  Considering it's connotations, I don't see any way that it is not considered racism.  There is no way to use blackface as an artistic device free of racism.  Period. End of story.

That said, do I typically enjoy French Vogue's artistic and occasionally controversial pictures?  Heck yes, US Vogue is so concerned about it's advertisers that the Dolce and Gabbana ads are the most interesting pictures.

The pictures to me look like art and just because someone said they are blackface doesnt mean that Vogue considers them that way. Since when can't artist fashion ads produce photos with women painted in color. It is not like they were mocking or inapproperiate and if they put someone in any color skin shade, would it be a big deal? I think the photos are artistic and people need to worry less on making something into a bigger deal than it is. If Vogue would label the pictures as models in blackface thats one thing. Freedom of expression.

Thank heavens the French aren't as uptight and PC-obsessed as we enslaved Americans. The use of full-face colouring in art predates the discovery of America, much less the period during which slavery and racism ruled. The French don't share our guilt - and they should not share our irrational condemnation of anything that only remotely relates to the Anglo-American enslavement of Africans.

Dumb Dana this is very tastless..  NOT art.. get out more and see real art..."I don't see any situation where blackface is appropriate.  Considering it's connotations, I don't see any way that it is not considered racism.  There is no way to use blackface as an artistic device free of racism.  Period. End of story." I agree

It is not blackface.  It is being called blackface for even greater controversy.  It does leave me questioning why they did not use a Black model, which may be racism or why they did not care if it would be offensive.  Oh, yes controversy, attention, money, readers, sales......

Quite justified considering French Vogues history and the history behind the paintings to begin with.  That said, there is no reason to ever put someone in blackface....ever! Anyone who says different is insensitive and hasn't done their research.

To Jasonhad,
What guilt? That is a media invention. I do not feel guilty for the past.
I had nothing to do with it. Do I agree with slavery? Certainly not! Do I think all white people are to blame for it? Certainly not!
Total foolishness! Certainly!

The pictures are nice, but my question is with the number of great looking black models, why not use a black model? As a black woman, I wasn't offended by  the photos.  They are artistic.

There is no way that this could not be seen as offense and even if not the intent wasn't a creative mind would have considered the total audience and reconsidered.  There are thousands of beautiful naturally black faced models who could have portrayed a realistic image of what was snapped instead.  People can deny the offensiveness of this but there is no other race that is being distorted here.  The lesson here is not about creativity but ignornace of offending actions and lack of willingness to learn a better way to create.

Not offensive at all.  It all looks very artistic in a sort of mock black and white photo shoot.  If you're offended, don't buy the magazine, enough said.  Quit being babies about everything.  Grow up people, and same to the editor.  Why are you stoking the fire by suggesting that people will be offended.  I bet you a dollar that noone would have even noticed or cared had you not brought it up.  A person can be smart, but the masses that you pander too are ignorant and will simply follow along with your rediculous diatribe.

I don't see what's so bad about it. People need to stop screaming
racism everytime the most minimal thing happens. If you want racism
to be in the past, stop making a big deal about nothing. That's why
there still is racism, because people keep getting their feelings
hurt over something that wasn't even intended on getting you all
teary-eyed and flustered. I wouldn't have a problem if someone felt
the need to emulate my race for art or fashion.

Thank you! Black is a color...it belongs to everyone...not just African Americans. Over the years we've seen people painted every color of the rainbow. Remember Goldfinger?

I checked out the pictures to see if I find them offensive and I don't.  If I saw the pictures before I read the article I may have felt differently.  The face does look a little off.  I don't find this very important and if someone's upset they can voice their opposition but it probably won't change anything.

I find the images offensive and French Vogue should not be given a pass on this just because they call it "art."  I understand that minstrels, Al Jolson and Mickey Rooney portraying a Japanese man (Breakfast at Tiffany's) were all of their time and would be inexcusable today.  So too, this so-called art is inexcusable.  Even sadder that a magazine that represents a multi-ethnic society could not find multi-ethnic models for what should have been a beautiful photo spread.

Just because something is offensive in the US cultural context does not make it wrong anywhere else.
Stop trying to impose those views on the whole world.
A lot of things done in the US would be called offensive in muslim countries. Would it be nice to have more women of different natural skin color in fashion? sure thing.
Is artistic expression wrong? no way.

1) This issue of French Vogue was to highlight famous models of the past and present. Note: No Black models were included in the issue 2) Naomi, Alek, Tyra, Beverly, Veronica, Chanel Iman, Liya...shall I go on?

While i dont see the pictures as racist, i do feel that by not using a black model for these pictures speaks more to the discrimination and exclusion of black models. The lack of representation of black models in editorials and the catwalk is grossely unfair and not representative of the varied beauty in this world. What do i tell my black child when she notices that there are rarely positive showings of black beauty on display?

Booooooo f'ing Hooooooo.... I'm African an American woman and this is not racist. Get a grip. Like said before this actually is an art(!!!!!)form that was used long long before slavery. The photo´s look amazing. Stop thinking that everything is about the color of our skin. That´s ignorant. And frankly it´s overreacting! Sometimes it is just about snapping an editorial.

I may be wrong on this, but isn't the term and histroy of "blackface" American based? Is this even an issue in Europe, or did France ever even have blaceface performances?

If I have my history right, I don't think they did. Anyone know?

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the photos themselves are offensive. If this were an American magazine, I'd have to think twice about it, since blackface was popular here (though I believe the French are aware of the controversy). The offensive part is that black models were snubbed again. For every 15 white models in a fashion show, there is ONE black model and maybe ONE asian model-- literally (or maybe one light skin and one very dark skin, not much in between. Or one Japanese, but not one Korean...b/c the Asians are already represented by that one Japanese model). I was once turned down on a trip b/c another agent had found A black model to go and hadn't communicated that to my agent. A-- as in ONE. It happens all the time.

We as US citizens, are very closed minded and sight hindered.  These photos are not even "black face", if they were they would only color the face, not the whole body.  The only thing I can see wrong with them is the lack of authentic models.  For not using models of true authenticity, they might be racist, but the pictures themselves are tastefully done and very good.  Americans need to expand their minds, and let go of their past.  

What would be the difference if she were painted blue or red? Its a color not a race. Sorry, I think this is being overly sensitive.

What's the difference then between these pictures and people who slather themselves with self-tanners and bake under UV rays to excess? Isn't that just another form of racism, pretending to be darker than one's own natural color? Of course they could have used Black models--that's the point and that would have been easier. This is INTERESTING because it's different. They could have done the same scenario with a Black model in "whiteface". It's art.

With so many beautiful black models what is the purpose of "blackface"?  Besides conjuring up unsavory images of America's tragic past, it is irrelevant.  

With so many beautiful black models what is the purpose of "blackface"?  Besides conjuring up unsavory images of America's tragic past, it is irrelevant.  

...This is the 21 Century! I am very displeased with the "black-face" photos...what are they advertising...a minstrel show, or is this just an example of extremely poor judgement, border line ignorance maybe? To whomever came up with this idea, a severance check and 2 week notice should be in order, so next time (should you ever be employed in this area again) you will think twice before reaching backwards in history, un-earthing painful memories!

I am black and I was not offended about the blackface. it is art.  Where were the black models or other ethnic models in this shoot

i don't think the intention was to represent the model as a black woman.  even if it was, their rationale behind doing that would have to be taken into consideration, before labeling it racist or not.  the artistic quality of the photos could have been an intended contrast between culturally prominent features between ethnicities.  it could also be to point out the lack of non-white models in high fashion.  whatever the intention, i think it's important to read the article, and view the whole portfolio before simply pointing at a target and labeling it as "racist".  think about the undertones of what the artist/photographer was trying to get across before jumping to conclusions.  

Why in the name of art, did they need to do this? Vogue is supposed to be selling clothing and this doesn't compell me to buy it "INTERESTING" or not. I saw the photo and I could not tell you the first thing about what she was wearing, but the image of her face and body painted is printed indelibly in my mind. Another issue that bothers me, that with about only 2 black models working mainstream high fashion, why didn't they use a black model? Not "artsy" enough, I guess

I don't consider the Lara Stone photos "blackface," it is more like Goldfinger's full body paint in gold. It may be black latex body paint. It would be acceptable if she wore flat white Kabuki-style make-up, wouldn't it? Or blue all over, like the performance art of The Blue Man Group? This was not at all representative of the American vaudeville tradition of "blackface," and the expression of the costume is half-way around the world from vaudeville. Either you misunderstand the use of the term "blackface," or you're creating a tempest in a teapot.

I am a dark skinned black women (a art history major) who modeled for a while in Los Angeles. I am a "Image Specialist", by profession. If I believed racism did not exist in this industry or our world I could look and see the art and beauty in this photography. But unfortunately racism does exist. I believe beauty can be found in people of all colors. Vogue made a choice and did not look for it. If we are to live in a global community that works for everyone it is important that we make every effort to be sensitve toward the cultures of all people. Especially if we want to sale our products all over the world. When I buy a magazine that does not reflect the demographics of the world that interface with on a daily basis, I make a choice, and I won't buy it again. "Put your money where your heart is".  

I think the photos are beautiful.  As a woman of colour, I find it hard to take offense.

What is the timing that is being considered here? Be more specific when you write an article please.

Hmmm to be honest I am not sure as what to say. If the perceived notion is that it is offensive to the “black” audience then it definitely was an offensive tactic on the part of the publisher. It’s also not likely that the French Vogue had no choice of black models to hire for the shoot either. If they needed a new fresh face then there is Sara Nuru who won Germany’s Next Top Model competition in a predominantly and somewhat intolerable white dominate society. Plus Lara Stone should get it to the bone that she can never represent the beauty of being black she is awful at it, and she looks ugly with the unnatural & overtly exaggerated black skin tone. She definitely is not pretty even in her own skin tone……

Well also, obviously the French Vogue has a sort of mild obsession with “blackness”. Well the entire Western world actually. In the Dutch society they paint black faces on white people every year and celebrate it as a national holiday. Still I am not sure of the purpose or the validity to have such a tradition at all. Now that is a questionable approach to honoring and respecting people of different color than the “traditional” Dutch society. See to the Dutch model Lara Stone coming from a country that does that EVERY year, her actions must be just right and correct. As for the French "Vogue" definitely to get attention in a cheap way it is always good to hide behind Art as the reason for actions.  

i really dont see the problem with this! it is just a different photoshoot to the usual ones, i mean should't people be more anygry about michael jackson(R.I.P) getting his skin colour changed? it is only make up and i think the whole world should get over the whole black white thing, we are all the same!!!!! its like applying fake tan!

I havent seen these photos but the first thing that came to my mind as a black woman was back in the old times when black face was used to portray an African American. They may not have intentionally wanted this to be a racist gesture but some people deal with racism everyday of their lives. So yes they would be offended. I personally am not offended. I dont let the actions of ignorant people offend me. Just dont physically offend me. Sticks and stones....

Recently Harry Connick Jr. was asked to judge at a talent show, he "treated" to a Minstrel show act at the event in Australia.

Being the Southern Gentleman that he is, he was polite. Although out of difference to the act and being a guest in another country and possibly hoping they would see how uncomfortable he was with the entertainment - he sat through the performance rather than just getting up and leaving. However, after seeing the audience actually enjoyed the show, he wasted no words, calmly expressed his complete distain for what it (blackface) represents. He ended his explanation with a comment that “had he known, such entertainment was to be featured , he would have chosen not to attend”.

Blackface is a license, a caricature of what Whites thought Blacks might act, when placed in unfamiliar situations. That generalization was false then and is even less true today. I cannot see how any American can justify an "Artistic character" to something as heinous as resurrecting such villainy.

whenever tells me that something can no longer be done, never be done, that it will ALWAYS have the same meaning, that makes me want to do it.  Open your minds, people.  Its just an image.  

  Big Deal! Where was all the politically correct faux-outrage when Robert Downey Jr. played a black guy in the movie Tropic Thunder? He was also sprayed with dark make-up, his lips were artificially enlarged, he wore a kinky-haired wig and spoke with the classic black colloquialism voice. THAT was someone making fun of blacks, but it was OK because Hollywood is immune from allegations of racism because they create TV shows and movies written and produced by white guys who think black people will watch them.

Now for clarification: If anyone who was hysterical about this would have done their research they would have clearly seen the difference between the dark brown make-up or the tint and what "black face" really is. Blackface was truly black make-up across the face with the eyes outlined in white and the lips covered with bright red make-up to make the whole face gaudy and humorous to look at. It was never used in an ethnocentric way nor were any of the performances deliberately racially biased to make fun of Negroes back then.  
   
  Al Jolson was world famous for his "Mammy" act. He enjoyed performing in blackface makeup – a theatrical convention in the early 20th century. With his unique and dynamic style of singing black music, like jazz and blues, he was later credited with single-handedly introducing African-American music to white audiences.[1] As early as 1911 he became known for fighting against anti-black discrimination on Broadway. Jolson's well-known theatrics and his promotion of equality on Broadway helped pave the way for many black performers, playwrights, and songwriters, including Cab Calloway, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Fats Waller, and Ethel Waters.

  So-called public figures need to find the courage to speak out and say "enough!" with the all thing black is offensive mentality. The only purpose it serves is to keep racial tensions high and money flowing into the coffers of the elected bigots like Maxine Waters and Rita Walters and the Congressional Black Caucus  who are supposed to represent an entire district, but instead spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to convince uneducated and uninformed that the sole goal of white people is to keep black people down.  People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the other rich bigots are making millions of dollars a year spewing hate and fear, yet no one seems to be catching on to that. Vogue did nothing wrong, but they did create a very interesting layout.

Why did French Vogue do the cover they did...because European countries do not label every little thing as racist or non racist.  European countries don't seem to have the 'race' hang up like we do.  People just seem to be people, not a color or religious sect.

I don't see anything controversial in the photos. There is no afro or definite portrayal of a "black" woman.The model is beautiful and so are the photos. I would suggest people open their minds a bit more. This is not "black face" -- the entire body is done in a dark brown and there is nothing in the photo which appears to be mocking any race. I am sensitive to racially charged topics. I assure you- this is not anything to get upset about.

Meh, I'm black and blackface/black imitation (hell, ANY sort of person portraying a race that they're not) is only acceptable if its in either good taste or its such a good depiction I can't complain. This model, however, looks like either the ugliest white chick I've seen in a long time or the ugliest black chick I've seen in a long time. So am I insulted/offended? Yeah, for blacks AND whites.

As an artist myself, I see no artistic expression in here; and no racism. Really the pictures are poorly done but there is no need to shout out racism. Rather, Klein and Roitfield should be critized for their poor use of make-up and photograph and distinct lack of imagination.

I like it, we need more ads like this, racist?? I doubt it, black people too sensitive ? heck yes.... lets move on and stop crying ove the little stuff, obama is black and the majority of America voted for him so end of racism get over it. The word cracker is used to describe white people on BET but we dont cry like babies .... boo hooo so sensitive.

Seriously, everyone needs to take a breath and look at the photos again.  The point, if anyone had any marketing sense, was not to enrage up-tight Americans but to put the model in the background and put the clothes in the fore-front.  In my opinion, women of color wear their respective colors best, and are more beautiful for it.  I have seen women of color painted white FOR ARTISTIC REASONS and the change of color put their beauty in the background.  Did anyone complain when Tyra Banks has a white woman painted to do a photo shoot as Grace Jones?!?!  The point of the matter is too many Americans (and I am one myself born and raised) are too sensetive about too many subjects.  That is why racisim is such a hot topic.  That is why children think it is cool to drink underage, and dabble in illegal drugs.  The truth of the matter is, if you make it tabboo, it is the one thing everyone will want.  Don't believe me, check your history books under prohibition.

If Blackface is wrong, so is bottled Blond hair on people of color and it's just as stupid looking.  

Artistic, who knows, does the artist make their thoughts known through their work, yes.  Unfortunately dumb old PC america doesn't get it.  Black face was used by whites in the entertainment industry because blacks weren't allowed to act making the current correlation between the relatively few black models and a ridiculous old time standard that blacks shouldn't act.  We all know not allowing blacks to act was dumb and the artist is showing it is equally dumb not to have black models.
Lets think a little about what the artist may be saying because it is art and therefore should be thought about and not taken at face value before we call out racist.

Americans seem to be really the only nation that is making such a big deal about this. People have become so sensitive that the notion of freedom of expression only fits if it agrees with what is PC. From my understanding of freedom of expression it is the individual right. If someone does not like it well don't read Vogue. I wonder how many people here have even picked up a copy of French Vogue? In there history they are known to have done these typy of photoshoots. If anything all this hype and these calles by some to boycott Vogue is just going to have one effect. The effect? They will sell more copies of this edition. If anything Vogue is more than likely happy about the reaction.

VERY artistic...and if you think they're racist, consider this: They could have told the model "no, we need a black girl, you can't do this"--THAT would have been racist. Is a bronze statue racist because the "skin" is dark brown?  If she had been painted green, would you say it was racist against Martians? get the point?

People in the performing arts have been painting their faces in all shades and colours for centuries.

Just because "blackface" was used in a pejorative manner in the distant past - in the USA only - does not mean those using it now - in a separate country altogether, mind you - should be subject to USA's cultural imperialism.

Look at the pictures in context, for goodness' sake. Are they used to mock any racial group? Obviously not: the pictures are beautiful works of art in every aspect you can imagine.

Even if you are unable to grow up and get over your hang-ups, USA, at least try not to impose your values on others.

As a Black person living the UK, I find the images disturbing. Race is still a major issue here in Europe and that is a fact. Whereas blackface was removed from American TV in the 60s, up until the early 70s, there were blackfaces on British television and it was known that it was offensive then as it is now.

I can bet that the majority of persons who do not find this offensive are white and think that those black person who does find it offensive  are cry babies and overly sensitive.

What would be great as a social experiment is for those who are white and think we are making a mountain of a a perceived molehill to paint themselves black and try to live a day as a black person.

Also the mere fact that not one black model was used in this issue is testimony of the racism of French Vogue.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):