Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
I'm just irked about the breasts, really.
Though I do think that giving the photographer a pass on this is dodging the issue. We have a black person taking the place of a monkey. I don't think it has anything to do with Germans.
It being "art" though, they could give us anything and we would still argue.
"The idea is to show how women in the grasp of giant apes are no longer in distress."
|
Well, again I need to ask because it's not clear. Has Annie Liebovitz or anyone said that they used this image as a reference for the photograph? Or is it just a coincidence. I do see your point in that, if she did, she is using a black man to take the place of the gorilla in the image. But I find it highly unlikely that Annie Liebovitz would do so because she thinks it is acceptable to portray black men as gorillas. I would need to know more about the conceptualization of this photo shoot.
But one thing I did want to bring up is that, just because the gorilla in the artwork is being used to portray a German, doesn't mean the intent of the piece is as simple as that. Propaganda is intended to be interpreted subconsciously as more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, if there were racial tensions in this country that could be played on during WWI, which is highly likely, then the adaptation of an image already used to portray the threat of black men would have been more successful in perpetuating the same threat from German men than other images.