Sidenote: Ok, some may call it lazy that I'm doubling a sequel, but if the two weren't intertwined, I wouldn't exactly have much to talk about right now would I?Previously on "My $0.02"................
Black Eye of the Tiger
Racism in America
Now....... as I stated before
"The American media loves nothing more than bringing down a prominent black person from glory........YEAH I SAID IT!!"Extreme? I've been told......and then I saw this:
Where does one start? With the fact that it was done before the incident or that it was done without Tiger's participation?
Now it's possible that going to architecture school within an art school has made me a little over analytical about graphic imagery. I might read too much into a bare-chested photo of a person (forget race, the image of a bare cheste black man has no historic context of barbarism) who is almost always portrayed in a polo shirt if not some other professional/casual attire. I might be o.d.'ing when I say the cold color scheme of the backdrop and blue filters combined with the metallic free-weights are reminiscent of an inmate in a prison yard. I may be a little over the top to imply that the otherwise contradictory scully hat (scully = knit hat, ppl in different regions call it different things) which otherwise makes no sense, is the crowning cherry on the top to create the hoodlum, thug, criminal, bandit, villain persona. Heavens no! No way that could possibly be intentional. I work out all the time...well... used to.... (notice it's been a while since a "Staying Motivated in Gym" installment but that's another conversation) and I have shoulder length hair, so I can imagine how cold the head of a clean shave athlete must get while working out.....in the same climate that prompts one to take off their shirt....... which in itself is not at all symbolic of stripping anyone of anything...other than clothes........especially in the context of his current affairs. That's too far fetched.
And I'm absolutely confident that such an accredited publication mogul like "Vanity Fair" would be so versed in the power of still images that if any of these absurd insinusations were ever possible, it would have come up at least once before it made cover or even made it to print. It's not like EVERYTHING isn't scrutinized, analyzed and discussed down to the composition, colors, position and size or type of fonts. There's no way any publication would be either so oblivious or aware of this and still okay the article. Cus we all know how bad contraversy is for magazine sales. Who would want that?
I'm not trying to say anything, I'm just saying. Observations, is all. Oh! This will DEFINITELY be continued....
This brain fart has been brought to you by the letter "T," the color Orange, The New York Public Library, sarcasm, AND VIEWERS LIKE YOU!!!!EPILOGUE....or perhaps, rather prologue-ey, after-the-fact but actually written long before-type-thingy....
Why does this all feel like deja vu? Bc I had this same debate almost two years ago when Vogue had "Lebron Kong" on the cover. I was told then that I was too over the top so I wanted to share with you all a post I wrote at the time in my discussion group "Vital Issues 'n' Stuff with Charles" (apparently forgetting I actually had a blog at the time).
Despite my love of sesquipedalian salads and semiotic symphonies, one thing we've heard a trillion gazillion times, when word fail, a picture says a thousand words.....
UPDATE: OF COUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSE!!!! NO WONDER!! ITS THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHER ANNIE LEIBOWITZ!!!!!!