do we really need another inaccurate racial stereotype in advertising?

it’s kind of telling that the only thing here that isn’t lovingly overmannered is… the black guy. am i supposed to take that to mean the black man is the only real thing, and therefore untouchable, or that he’s been overmannered even more than the gold? and is he in a position of power because he’s dressed as a huge corporate conglomerate, or is he weakened becuse he’s a clown? or both?

granted, this comes from the UK, so attitudes are different, but still: wow. that just pushes too many buttons in too many cruel ways, no matter where you are.

more than racist, i really think the ad (see previous entry) is insipid. the point was obviously to make fun of something about hip hop culture—be that its participants, corporate appropriation of it, or… something. i can’t tell. the designers managed to muddle everything about this piece into such a messy, overemotional attack that i can’t tell who’s being parodied. it looks like the creators simply stopped thinking once they decided they could piss someone (anyone!) off, because you know? that’s enough these days.

(here’s steven heller’s take on it.)

first: the bling is completely wrong. the entire point is showing off as much money as possible, and that means diamonds—the word itself refers to a diamond’s sparkle. this is completely gold, so in terms set by the subculture itself, this is cheap street crap with a much lower resale value than the real thing. kid stuff.

that means we could be making fun of people who appropriate gangsta culture, right? maybe actual gangstas? dunno.

second: the typography is more of a fashion designer’s wistfully ironic recollection of shaft than anything anyone would actually make today. what’s that supposed to mean?

again, possibly making fun of people who rip off gangsta culture? too ambiguous to tell. or we could be making fun of black stereotypes from the seventies. fuck, i don’t know.

third: why was it necessary for the model to be a really black person of such ambiguous gender? has s/he been coerced into this costume, or is s/he some sort of authoriative figure? s/he seems awfully stern, once you get around the ridiculous steppin fetchit meets aunt jemima meets ronald mcdonald getup. the gender is so ambiguous that the audience has no way to get anything more out of this person than “black as all get out, and pissed.”

the piece might have worked if the model was of a racial background *really* far removed from gangsta’s black origins. then you’d definitely be making fun of anyone appropriating the culture.

so maybe we’re making fun of black people. or maybe we’re making fun of the fact that we can put coarse-looking black people into any scenario and it’s funny? or maybe we’re making fun of poor black people who can be easily manipulated by corporations?

there’s no commentary being made with this piece at all, because everything is so inflammatory it all cancels out. the audience is being asked to simply react, not think. thanks guys, thanks for advancing your profession so far.

this is the kind of garbage thirst would have tossed around for a couple of days, back in the early 90’s, then decided against. it’s button-pushing for no particular reason, and that’s really easy to make.

i’m sure someone involved in the making will end up crowing, “but we sure got people talking!” and that’s true. but you also got people talking about what an insensitive ass you are, how disprespectful you are to subcultures’ own vocabularies, and how stupid the organization is for listening to you.