FoxyPV Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 So what if it depicting a hierarchy? A hierarchy that has white people ahead of black people or vice versa isn't necessarily racist. Just look at any work place. Lots of hierarchies where blacks are ahead of whites and whites are ahead of blacks. Is that racist? Of course not. I think this is one of those things where in order to see racism, you actually have to betray the fact that you are racist yourself, in that by assuming the black girl is a victim, you are betraying the status you automatically assign to blacks. It is if you put the white person on top and the black person as the seat. By putting the black person as the chair, the artist is deliberately reducing that person to chattel and therefore an object. Why use a black person in the first place? If the artist wanted to be truly subversive, why not have a man as the chair? The whole thing is just about the artist tryng to shock people and court controversy.
Darkon84 Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 It is if you put the white person on top and the black person as the seat. By putting the black person as the chair, the artist is deliberately reducing that person to chattel and therefore an object. Why use a black person in the first place? If the artist wanted to be truly subversive, why not have a man as the chair? The whole thing is just about the artist tryng to shock people and court controversy. You realise there is an exact same chair, but with a white person as the seat?
Strokes Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 It is if you put the white person on top and the black person as the seat. By putting the black person as the chair, the artist is deliberately reducing that person to chattel and therefore an object. Why use a black person in the first place? If the artist wanted to be truly subversive, why not have a man as the chair? The whole thing is just about the artist tryng to shock people and court controversy. why shouldn't the mannequin be black? you think its ok to use a white mannequin but not a black, what does that say?
MooseBreath Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 It is if you put the white person on top and the black person as the seat. By putting the black person as the chair, the artist is deliberately reducing that person to chattel and therefore an object. Why use a black person in the first place? If the artist wanted to be truly subversive, why not have a man as the chair? The whole thing is just about the artist tryng to shock people and court controversy. If you perceive races as equal, it doesn't matter. It is just two people whose races are irrelevant. Only if you perceive a difference between the inherent status of the two races could this be considered racist. And if that's what you perceive, you are a racist.
Merging Cultures Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 It is if you put the white person on top and the black person as the seat. By putting the black person as the chair, the artist is deliberately reducing that person to chattel and therefore an object. Why use a black person in the first place? If the artist wanted to be truly subversive, why not have a man as the chair? The whole thing is just about the artist tryng to shock people and court controversy. Art (assuming the photo and/or the chair can be considered art) can be used to shock and court controversy. It certainly has stimulated debate (and apparently other things) on this forum. Personally, I don't see a problem with it. I think because it was a white (Russian?) woman sitting on the chair we can make quick assumptions that she is racist. If a white man was sitting on the chair would our first thought be racism or misogynism? What about a black man sitting on a chair made from a white female mannequin? While not very original, I think it is very thought provoking and should be debated. Although, I still think it is a shit picture with the photographers shoulder in the mirror.
davieG Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 Parties at DavieG's house look like good fun Everyone is welcomed.
Zingari Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 Everyone is welcomed. i dont think i want to sit on that one if it's all the same to you . have you got a wing backed Parker Knoll riser that i can use ? preferably one with a little pouffe to rest my feet on edit i seem to be multiple quoting for some reason ?
FoxyPV Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 You realise there is an exact same chair, but with a white person as the seat? Yes. It's ripping that piece off to cause controversy. why shouldn't the mannequin be black? you think its ok to use a white mannequin but not a black, what does that say? The white (arguably could be seen a a default setting) chair was used to portray the exploitation of women and because that has already been done, the artist has to try and make this piece his own by doing it differently. Why choose a black female with fetish like clothing on? Why not make it a blue man etc? The colour was chosen for a reason by an artist. If you perceive races as equal, it doesn't matter. It is just two people whose races are irrelevant. Only if you perceive a difference between the inherent status of the two races could this be considered racist. And if that's what you perceive, you are a racist. As I've said above, why does the colour have to black? The colour of the chair is not irrelevant to the artist as they had a multitude of colours and attire to choose, yet he chose that particular set. This piece does not articulate any inherent difference between the races but a commentary on the history of the relations between these two particular colours of people and what perceptions may then continue from that shared history. It is also like treating someone like they're part of the furniture i.e. taken for granted, not respected, not valued otuside of a perfunctory role and therefore to have little role in the other person's existence. Seeing racism / sexism in something does not mean that you are yourself racist / sexist.
MooseBreath Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 Why shouldn't he have chosen a black woman for the chair? Because of history? Then you're just picking bits and pieces of history and using that as an excuse to treat people differently in the present day. Examples of racist treatment of white people abound, as is the case for every race. If society has to conduct its present day relationships with behavior modified according to historical events, then there is really no end to the amount of issues you could choose to bring forward. Simply choosing issues that relate to black people being discriminated against makes you seem at best historically ignorant, at worst a patronising racist.
Strokes Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 Yes. It's ripping that piece off to cause controversy. The white (arguably could be seen a a default setting) chair was used to portray the exploitation of women and because that has already been done, the artist has to try and make this piece his own by doing it differently. Why choose a black female with fetish like clothing on? Why not make it a blue man etc? The colour was chosen for a reason by an artist. As I've said above, why does the colour have to black? The colour of the chair is not irrelevant to the artist as they had a multitude of colours and attire to choose, yet he chose that particular set. This piece does not articulate any inherent difference between the races but a commentary on the history of the relations between these two particular colours of people and what perceptions may then continue from that shared history. It is also like treating someone like they're part of the furniture i.e. taken for granted, not respected, not valued otuside of a perfunctory role and therefore to have little role in the other person's existence. Seeing racism / sexism in something does not mean that you are yourself racist / sexist. sSo you would be happy for it to be any other colour, just not black?
Darkon84 Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 Maybe everyone is just looking at it in the wrong light. Maybe it's a show of power that only a black woman is strong enough to hold up this shit world that the white man has created. its actually pro black
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 This reminds me of the South Park episode where the change the flag of a black man being hung by a white man to a black man being hung by a white, black, purple, red and brown men to appease the town idiots. (the kids thought the problem with the original was that someone was being hung as the colour of it didnt cross their mind and they couldn't understand why they were being called racist) I think their is a lot of merit in what Moose is saying here, you have to have race on your own mind to think it's wrong because the chair is black. Only a true non racist could look at that picture and not see what the fuss is about.
Charl91 Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 I normally wouldn't think it was particularly racist. But they're Russian. So it probably is.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 The black lady is in a good sexual position!! Calm down, you'd never manage it!
THEBIGJOHNSTEADER; Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 I've seen Singhs 3rd leg and he could defo get into the blacks tiny lil stinkhole
Dr The Singh Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 I've seen Singhs 3rd leg and he could defo get into the blacks tiny lil stinkhole Tooo right, when are me and you going on a poon hunt!!! We'll invite Dangerous Tiger for laughs, he will be the wing man that never pulls!!
Russell sprout Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 In my experience people don't associate the colour of other objects with the colour of people's skin (I'm sure you've noticed this too and have just allowed it to slip your mind here to make your point). Therefore I think it's unlikely that a racist would be persuaded to buy a certain item because of it's colour. However with the chair above the association between the item itself and race is much stronger for obvious reasons. As such it seems possible to me that someone might purchase it to assert that black people are some sort of servant class. Is it entirely unfeasible that this might be the case? Personally I doubt that sort of statement is intended in this image although the servant/master relationship implied by the chair isn't particularly appetising either. No offence intended Harry, But it's your do gooding comments above that is what's wrong with society,folk cannot do or say anything for fear of being branded racists, I'm fed up of seeing all this so called racist bollox and white people always having to justify what we have said and done.it got beyond ridiculous.
Harry - LCFC Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 No offence intended Harry, But it's your do gooding comments above that is what's wrong with society,folk cannot do or say anything for fear of being branded racists, I'm fed up of seeing all this so called racist bollox and white people always having to justify what we have said and done.it got beyond ridiculous. I'm not saying it's racist. I just don't believe it's unthinkable that that was the message intended in the picture. I don't think you could say with certainty that it isn't either. Regardless of whether it is or not it's still pretty unpleasant which people seem to have been missing. The 'servant' type display would still be there if the manikin was white. Why shouldn't he have chosen a black woman for the chair? Because of history? Then you're just picking bits and pieces of history and using that as an excuse to treat people differently in the present day. Examples of racist treatment of white people abound, as is the case for every race. If society has to conduct its present day relationships with behavior modified according to historical events, then there is really no end to the amount of issues you could choose to bring forward. Simply choosing issues that relate to black people being discriminated against makes you seem at best historically ignorant, at worst a patronising racist. Sorry, Moose, only just seen this. You've assumed that I only spoke up because the woman is black. I know the type of person you're talking about, people who'll only attack racism if it's against non-white people, the hypocritical George Galloway type. Positive discrimination isn't a commendable trait in my book either. I promise you I'd have said the same thing regardless of ethnic background. Don't put me in that category because it happens to be a black person involved in this particular case.
Russell sprout Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 So because the manikin was of a black women,sat on by a white person,that's implying the black person is deemed as a servent, They should make one if ulrica Johnson, And get stan collymore to sit on it,be interesting to see whats made of that,nothing ild suspect.
Harry - LCFC Posted 23 January 2014 Posted 23 January 2014 No. My second comment disregards race altogether. Replace the words 'white person' and 'black person' with 'human being' and you'll arrive at what I actually meant. Could it be racist? You'll have to ask her. Either way it's something I find quite unpleasant.
Strokes Posted 24 January 2014 Posted 24 January 2014 Can I ask if any of the black community think this is racist, or is it just snobby white folk, taking offence on behalf of others again?
Captain... Posted 24 January 2014 Posted 24 January 2014 There are some ridiculous posts on here, that to think it is racist then you are the racist, this the Godfrey Bloom approach, now seeing as she has apologised for it, then clearly she sees it as racist, therefore is she a racist? In which case everyone is right to call her a racist. Anyone not seeing how this could be interpretted as a racist image is being deliberately obtuse, likewise anyone calling her a racist outright is clearly being overly sensitive, but it is clear that the artist had race on his mind when he made it, if you think this is me being a white snob, then: "The artwork by Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard is one of a series that “reinterprets art historical works from artist Allen Jones as a commentary on gender and racial politicsâ€, said a spokesman for Ms Zhukova". She has clearly been very niave, "Hello semi famous woman, from a country with known race problems. This is chair a commentary on race and gender, I know why don't you sit on it, that will go down well." Then it gets published on Martin Luther King day. Racism is clearly about intent and nobody knows what her or the artist's or the photographer's true intentions were, but if you really can't see that that picture could be interpretted as racist then you're an idiot.
MPH Posted 24 January 2014 Posted 24 January 2014 I wonder what the significance is of the belt tying the 'ladies' legs and back together to keep her in that position? If its just a novelty chair then why the belt? There's definitely a domination aspect going on here.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.