Abramovich’s partner sparks outrage with ‘incredibly racist’ picture

[Merging Cultures]

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.

Couldn't agree more.

[Strokes]

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.

I must be an idiot then? oh well, at least I have no grey area when it comes to the age of consent.

[Captain...]

I must be an idiot then? oh well, at least I have no grey area when it comes to the age of consent.

 

 

You are right there is no way anybody could possible see a rich powerful white woman, using a naked and bound black woman as a chair as having any racial connotations, the artist who made the chair as a comment on race and gender must also be wrong, what was he thinking.

 

As for the age of consent, you are also right, women on their 16th birthday magically turn overnight from being too physically and emotionally immature to even know if they want to have sex, to being a fully emotionally and physically developed woman and ready to be ploughed by anyone of any age. The fact that I have ever thought otherwise also makes any opinion on any subject invalid.

 

I honestly envy you, living in such a black and white world.

[Strokes]

You are right there is no way anybody could possible see a rich powerful white woman, using a naked and bound black woman as a chair as having any racial connotations, the artist who made the chair as a comment on race and gender must also be wrong, what was he thinking.

As for the age of consent, you are also right, women on their 16th birthday magically turn overnight from being too physically and emotionally immature to even know if they want to have sex, to being a fully emotionally and physically developed woman and ready to be ploughed by anyone of any age. The fact that I have ever thought otherwise also makes any opinion on any subject invalid.

I honestly envy you, living in such a black and white world.

Oh she is white and rich, I see why its racist now thanks.

I also see what you mean on underage sex, its all about sexual maturity, I wonder how we can judge that one properly? Ask a priest

[MooseBreath]

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.

Your only justification for calling it racist is to put it in real life context with quotes from the artist and such, which is fine, but what about the picture itself? Ignore all the other stuff, focus purely on the picture. Do you still think it is racist?

[davieG]

It still looks as much about lesbian domination to me if it's about anything specific.

[Captain...]

Oh she is white and rich, I see why its racist now thanks.

I also see what you mean on underage sex, its all about sexual maturity, I wonder how we can judge that one properly? Ask a priest

 

I've not said it is racist, and if you don't think it is racist, then that is fine, but I can see why someone could see it as racist, Harry made the best point that you would have to ask her to know if the colour of the chair woman was a factor in her posing for the photo, to see if it was meant as racist.

 

Personally I think It is in bad taste, and very ill advised seeing as how sensitive racial issues are, but the photo, without context, doesn't make her racist.

 

As for judging sexual maturity being difficult, that is exactly my point, that is the grey area.

[Captain...]

It still looks as much about lesbian domination to me if it's about anything specific.

 

You see what you want to see, personally, whether intended or not, or it comes across as more a comment as how the elite see the world.

[FoxyPV]

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.

 

The artist claimed that this was a reinterpretation of the earlier piece now based on gender and racial politics.  I don't know how much more simply to explain it to you.  If the artist created it with with race in mind then there was a very specific reason he chose to make the chair in the shape of a black woman.

 

I agree that racism has been shown with relations of every race to each other but as we live in a mainly white population I dare say the artist has not used other hierarchies between races as they didn't come to his mind.

 

Racism is still prevalent today otherwise ethnic minorities would not be stopped and searched by the police at an expontentially higher rate than white people.  Stan Collymore wouldn't get an obscene amount of racist abuse for saying that a footballer dived.

 

You could relate these issues to any other race but the two races portrayed in the image are that of white and balck, so why bring other races into this?

 

 

sSo you would be happy for it to be any other colour, just not black?

 

Green, blue, purple, violet, indigo etc...

[RobHawk]

Storm in a D Cup!

[Strokes]

You see what you want to see, personally, whether intended or not, or it comes across as more a comment as how the elite see the world.

You see what you want to see

[RobHawk]

Its a ****ing chair!! It was made to sit on!! If that was Oprah Winfrey parking her fat arse on it, it would be "Oooh what an an interested chair!"

 

If she had sat on it with banner saying " I hate all people that aren't white!!" Then it may be racist! 

 

It reminds me of art, people can look at a piece of paper full of squiggles and say it represents a women's struggle through childbirth, "oooh how deep its amazing!" No its not its some ****ing squiggles on a piece of paper that a 5 year old could have drawn! Its not art and its not deep, get your head out of your arse and stop looking into things more than what they are! If you like squiggles thats brilliant but don't start saying it represents something it has absolutely no correlation to!

 

Same applies here - ITS A CHAIR!

[Captain...]

Its a ****ing chair!! It was made to sit on!! If that was Oprah Winfrey parking her fat arse on it, it would be "Oooh what an an interested chair!"

 

 

Except it wasn't made to be sit on, it is not a novelty piece of furniture it is a piece of art, that was a "commentary on race and gender", she didn't sit on it because there were no other seats left and her legs were killing her, she sat on it to have a photo taken. I don't know why she did it, maybe it was for a funny profile pic, or as a joke, but she did it deliberately and knowingly it is not just someone sitting on a chair.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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!!

   I can charm the birds out of the trees, and the human ones, out of their houses, panting for it. 

 

Keeps me fit too.        .     

[Captain...]

You see what you want to see

 

And you see what you want to see, but I can also understand how others might interpret it. I'm not going to call DavieG a pervert for thinking it relates to sex, I don't see it as sexual as there is nothing about Mrs Abramovich that suggests arousal or pleasure, but I can see where he is coming from. 

[RobHawk]

Except it wasn't made to be sit on, it is not a novelty piece of furniture it is a piece of art, that was a "commentary on race and gender", she didn't sit on it because there were no other seats left and her legs were killing her, she sat on it to have a photo taken. I don't know why she did it, maybe it was for a funny profile pic, or as a joke, but she did it deliberately and knowingly it is not just someone sitting on a chair.

 

This is the problem - you see a chair and call it art because of something the "artist" said, i see a chair and call it a chair. And not a very good chair at that because it wasn't made for sitting on according to you.

 

But 2 points to raise on your post -

 

1. How do you know her legs weren't tired? 

2. What happens if like me she saw a chair and thought it was a chair. What if she didn't understand the "artists" explanation of what it represents. Did she even know what the artist had said? How do we know that she saw that chair and thought, "I don't like black people, so if i sit on it, it makes me superior!"

 

I tend to agree with you on most things but i just think there's way too much presumption involved for this to be even considered racist!

[RobHawk]

And you see what you want to see, but I can also understand how others might interpret it. I'm not going to call DavieG a pervert for thinking it relates to sex, I don't see it as sexual as there is nothing about Mrs Abramovich that suggests arousal or pleasure, but I can see where he is coming from. 

Davie G is definitely a big perv though! He'll be on a C5 documentary soon - Sex with chairs!

[Webbo]

If an artist makes a chair as a comment about racism why is it racist to sit on it?

[Captain...]

This is the problem - you see a chair and call it art because of something the "artist" said, i see a chair and call it a chair. And not a very good chair at that because it wasn't made for sitting on according to you.

 

But 2 points to raise on your post -

 

1. How do you know her legs weren't tired? 

2. What happens if like me she saw a chair and thought it was a chair. What if she didn't understand the "artists" explanation of what it represents. Did she even know what the artist had said? How do we know that she saw that chair and thought, "I don't like black people, so if i sit on it, it makes me superior!"

 

I tend to agree with you on most things but i just think there's way too much presumption involved for this to be even considered racist!

 

I have not at any point called her racist, but I understand how people can interpret it that way, or interpret the picture that way whether it was the will of her the photographer or just mis-interpretation of what was supposed to be innocent.

 

If her legs were tired, and that was why she was sitting on it she wouldn't have posed for the photo and she would have probably picked a more comfortable chair to sit on. The pose and the photo were deliberate, whether it was racist or not is subjective.

[Captain...]

If an artist makes a chair as a comment about racism why is it racist to sit on it?

 

If the artist created it to represent how black woman are seen as little more than furniture and have no purpose in society other than practical servitude. Saying they are seen as little more than a piece of furniture. Then to actually use them as chair could be interpretted as you thinking that it is right and correct that black women are treated in this way by society.

[Webbo]

If the artist created it to represent how black woman are seen as little more than furniture and have no purpose in society other than practical servitude. Saying they are seen as little more than a piece of furniture. Then to actually use them as chair could be interpretted as you thinking that it is right and correct that black women are treated in this way by society.

Presumably the artist sold the chair to Abramovich and was glad of the money. What kind of statement is the artist making, racism is wrong unless I'm on an earner?

[Merging Cultures]

I have not at any point called her racist, but I understand how people can interpret it that way, or interpret the picture that way whether it was the will of her the photographer or just mis-interpretation of what was supposed to be innocent.

 

If her legs were tired, and that was why she was sitting on it she wouldn't have posed for the photo and she would have probably picked a more comfortable chair to sit on. The pose and the photo were deliberate, whether it was racist or not is subjective.

 

CPF I am with you on this.

 

The person who created the chair (let's call them an artist) wanted to court controversy and stimulate discussion by making a chair that is a social commentary, either about misogynism or racism.

 

This current photo is not necessarily racist. If she is sitting on the chair because she believes that black people or women should be subservient to a (probably) rich woman then her behaviour is racist. However, she could have had the photo taken to highlight existing tensions in society. Actually, it is interesting that she took this in the run up to the winter Olympics. She could be commenting on how the Russian Government isn't looking after minorities, such as gays.

 

The photo is just a photo, but her actions and intent could be racist.

 

I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense these days would pose for or take a photo where the intent was to be racist. Although, she is (probably) rich and Russian, so who knows?! She could be as dumb as Paris Hilton.

[Merging Cultures]

If the artist created it to represent how black woman are seen as little more than furniture and have no purpose in society other than practical servitude. Saying they are seen as little more than a piece of furniture. Then to actually use them as chair could be interpretted as you thinking that it is right and correct that black women are treated in this way by society.

 

Presumably the artist sold the chair to Abramovich and was glad of the money. What kind of statement is the artist making, racism is wrong unless I'm on an earner?

 

I'd say it is is 'living art', i.e. every time someone sits on the chair it should provoke discussion and thought about roles in society. Doesn't mean you are racist to sit in it, just partaking in a social commentary!?? 

[Captain...]

Presumably the artist sold the chair to Abramovich and was glad of the money. What kind of statement is the artist making, racism is wrong unless I'm on an earner?

 

I didn't know Abramovich bought the chair, if he did and has it around the house for every day use then that is a bit weird, surely he could afford an actual black woman to just adopt that pose, and others, whenever needed, probably be a lot cheaper too. 

[Webbo]

Whatever the intent it's a fecking horrible chair.