Anyone who knows anything about me knows that my version of Sunday bliss lies in a perfect cup of extra hot coffee, my favorite oversize hoodie and the Sunday New York Times. This past Sunday was extra blissful, as I slept until noon and indulged my taste buds with banana walnut pancakes. In rummaging through a pile of newspapers on my floor in search of this Sunday's New York Times, I ran across an article I had saved about Andre J – the colorful character that made waves by showing up on the cover of French Vogue. I re-read the article in hopes of debunking my previous thoughts. To some degree I blamed both the current issue of Vogue with Lebron James on the cover and the Kara Walker exhibit I had seen at the Whitney Museum where I viewed an installation that had an uncanny likeness to Saartjie Baartman, one of at least two Khoikhoi women that were exhibited as sideshow attractions in 19th century Europe under the name Hottentot Venus. Hottentot was the then current name for the Khoi people and Venus referred to works depicting the female form. My initial thought (about the Andre J. French Vogue cover) was exploitation – “oddities;” those operating outside established societal norms. Using history as a marker, “oddities” were often put on display for both entertainment and the promotion of superiority by those in positions of power. This type of exploitation is different from what we typically see nowadays, as African-Americans are now commodities for consumption by other African American – ala Flava of Love and “Who's Your Caddy” where the target audience is African-American. The fact that Vogue, especially French Vogue, is marketed towards a non-black audience caused me to question the intent. Was this some sort of return to a minstrel-like mindset (it never really left) – put an “oddity” on display for the enjoyment of some white folks? Rather than simply exclaiming this as exploitation, I wanted to examine what exploitation really means, and if the nature of exploitation has changed over the years. Can a person be exploited if they give their permission? Further, if the perpetrator of the exploitation is not aware that they are exploiting, is it still an offense? Have we become so consumed by the need to obtain “celebrity” that we are willing to compromise ourselves? This is by no means a critique on Andre J, but rather an examination of the process of exploitation.
Born in 1789, Baartman was a slave in Cape Town. It was here that she was “discovered” by British doctor William Dunlop, who persuaded her to travel with him to England. We'll never know what she had in mind as she boarded the ship - on her own free will, but it was clear what Dunlop had in mind; to display her as a “freak,” a “scientific curiosity” and make money from these shows – some of which he promised Baartman. Baartman had an unusually large buttocks and genitals, and in the early 1800's Europeans were arrogantly obsessed with their superiority, and with proving to others, particularly blacks, were inferior and oversexed. Baatman's physical characteristics, not uncommon for Khoisan woman, were “evidence” of this prejudice, and she was treated like a freak exhibited in London. She spent four years in London, and then moved to Paris where she continued her degrading round of shows and exhibitions. We will never know if Baartman was paid for her “services.” At any expense it couldn't have been enough. Once the Parisians got tired of the Baartman show, she was forced to turn to prostitution. She didn't last the ravages of a foreign culture and climate or the further abuse of her body. She died in 1815 at the age of 25.
Insert Andre J.
Andre J. was born in 1979 as Andre Johnson in the Academy Spires housing projects in Newark New Jersey. He was “discovered” in the summer of 2007 by Joe McKenna a celebrated stylist. Prior to being discovered by McKenna, Andre J. had appeared three times on the Jay Leno in cameo segments devoted to “human curiosities.” He found himself in Los Angeles for what he deemed as “sex and fame.” Andre J. doesn't consider his style to be drag nor does he consider himself to be “trans-” anything. He is “just expressing [himself] not hurting anyone and taking [himself] to a place where [he] wants to be, a place where the world is beautiful.” Maybe it's a stretch, but I definitely see similarities between Saartjie Baartman and Andre J. The question then becomes whether this is exploitation or not? Baartman and Andre J. both operated out of there own free will. Baartman accepting the invitation of Dunlop and Andre J. accepting the invitation from McKenna. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that, and I am paraphrasing, “Nobody can oppress you without your permission.” So were they merely willing participates seeking out some sort of means to an end, with the price of exploitation, in their eyes, not being too high for them to take part in it? If this is in fact the case, can we blame them? What about young women that strip to pay their way through college? Is this not on par? Better still, you have two individuals that were/are merely being themselves and existing as they see fit. So, in their existing, considered a discovery by some, it becomes okay the allow others to take interest in what Baartman and Andre J. deem as “regular” and what others view as unique. Let's use break dancing as an example. When kids were breaking in the Bronx during the late 70's and early 80's they were doing it as an artistic expression of themselves. The intent was not for this to become a phenomenon that would eventually reach Japan. They were existing – there was no ulterior motive. I'm not sure if I can say that this is the case with Baartman and Andre J. It seems that in some way they wanted to capitalize on their “uniqueness.” So I then have to question the role of the magazine publisher. Did French Vogue see this as a political statement - a magazine completely open, inviting their reading audience to share in their openness to someone who is different – a black bearded man in a dress? Perhaps the message lies in the fact that both gender and sexuality are lucid, and we need to be a re-examine what these terms mean? Or could simple exploitation be the culprit, and that both parties played an equal part? I support a person's right not to be forced to identify themselves as this, that or the other, yet I can't help but to think of how much more revolutionary his appearance on the cover of French Vogue would be, had that been the case. I think that then, and perhaps, only then would I consider this to be more than an attempt to expand one's career, at perhaps, any cost. What do you think?
Born in 1789, Baartman was a slave in Cape Town. It was here that she was “discovered” by British doctor William Dunlop, who persuaded her to travel with him to England. We'll never know what she had in mind as she boarded the ship - on her own free will, but it was clear what Dunlop had in mind; to display her as a “freak,” a “scientific curiosity” and make money from these shows – some of which he promised Baartman. Baartman had an unusually large buttocks and genitals, and in the early 1800's Europeans were arrogantly obsessed with their superiority, and with proving to others, particularly blacks, were inferior and oversexed. Baatman's physical characteristics, not uncommon for Khoisan woman, were “evidence” of this prejudice, and she was treated like a freak exhibited in London. She spent four years in London, and then moved to Paris where she continued her degrading round of shows and exhibitions. We will never know if Baartman was paid for her “services.” At any expense it couldn't have been enough. Once the Parisians got tired of the Baartman show, she was forced to turn to prostitution. She didn't last the ravages of a foreign culture and climate or the further abuse of her body. She died in 1815 at the age of 25.
Insert Andre J.
Andre J. was born in 1979 as Andre Johnson in the Academy Spires housing projects in Newark New Jersey. He was “discovered” in the summer of 2007 by Joe McKenna a celebrated stylist. Prior to being discovered by McKenna, Andre J. had appeared three times on the Jay Leno in cameo segments devoted to “human curiosities.” He found himself in Los Angeles for what he deemed as “sex and fame.” Andre J. doesn't consider his style to be drag nor does he consider himself to be “trans-” anything. He is “just expressing [himself] not hurting anyone and taking [himself] to a place where [he] wants to be, a place where the world is beautiful.” Maybe it's a stretch, but I definitely see similarities between Saartjie Baartman and Andre J. The question then becomes whether this is exploitation or not? Baartman and Andre J. both operated out of there own free will. Baartman accepting the invitation of Dunlop and Andre J. accepting the invitation from McKenna. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that, and I am paraphrasing, “Nobody can oppress you without your permission.” So were they merely willing participates seeking out some sort of means to an end, with the price of exploitation, in their eyes, not being too high for them to take part in it? If this is in fact the case, can we blame them? What about young women that strip to pay their way through college? Is this not on par? Better still, you have two individuals that were/are merely being themselves and existing as they see fit. So, in their existing, considered a discovery by some, it becomes okay the allow others to take interest in what Baartman and Andre J. deem as “regular” and what others view as unique. Let's use break dancing as an example. When kids were breaking in the Bronx during the late 70's and early 80's they were doing it as an artistic expression of themselves. The intent was not for this to become a phenomenon that would eventually reach Japan. They were existing – there was no ulterior motive. I'm not sure if I can say that this is the case with Baartman and Andre J. It seems that in some way they wanted to capitalize on their “uniqueness.” So I then have to question the role of the magazine publisher. Did French Vogue see this as a political statement - a magazine completely open, inviting their reading audience to share in their openness to someone who is different – a black bearded man in a dress? Perhaps the message lies in the fact that both gender and sexuality are lucid, and we need to be a re-examine what these terms mean? Or could simple exploitation be the culprit, and that both parties played an equal part? I support a person's right not to be forced to identify themselves as this, that or the other, yet I can't help but to think of how much more revolutionary his appearance on the cover of French Vogue would be, had that been the case. I think that then, and perhaps, only then would I consider this to be more than an attempt to expand one's career, at perhaps, any cost. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment