But that wouldn't have the statement of reversing expectation of who wants to play into what ideal. I'm not sold by any means that's part of the thinking with those who produced it, do wonder though.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
As clever as that might have been, you just don't touch some things w/ a ten foot pole...unless you want to ruffle some feathers. Which the magazine did.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Anna - it's just a thought with very debatable legs. But again, using a Black African woman wouldn't work if that thought was actually in play.

What spiderlashes said about offense being present in the racist art form of it didn't cross my mind. If that's what people who're familiar with racist art like that are clearly seeing/it's unmistakable, then it's safe to say the thought doesn't apply.

The only way I assumed people were reacting to it was "so even when they want to honor Black African beauty they use a white woman, out of perception that her beauty is superior."

Which made me wonder if the shoot's team could have conceived of it like "here's a white woman who wants to capture Black African beauty." Western-idolizing behavior turned around. She's altering herself to fit the mold she's aspiring to. You couldn't send that message with a Black African model.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
It might be similar to having the most lovely swastika in the world, embroidered with the finest silk thread onto the most glorious fabric...to showcase the beauty of the materials being used. But it's still a swatika. Materials and intention and craftship be damned. You just don't go there.