The photographer behind Lupita Nyong's new Grazia UK cover feature has been forced to apologize after the actress spoke out upon finding parts of her natural hair had been removed.
Nyong’o – who has made a name for herself starring in films such as "12 Years A Slave" and "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" – decided to speak out against the cover on Twitter this week, stating she was “disappointed” that the publication had “edited out and smoothed [her] hair to fit a more Eurocentric notion of what beautiful hair looks like (sic)."
The actress went even further on her Instagram page, fiercely writing: “As I have made clear so often in the past with every fiber of my being, I embrace my natural heritage and despite having grown up thinking light skin and straight, silky hair were the standards of beauty, I now know that my dark skin and kinky, coily hair are beautiful too”
Grazia has apologized profusely to Nyong’o, but were quick to clarify it was not they who altered the photo. Despite acknowledging that they did not “uphold the highest of editorial standards in ensuring that [they] were aware of all alterations that had been made,” the blame seemingly falls on photographer An Le. Having shot for a whole host of worldwide Vogue publications, Le accepted full responsibility for what he now recognized as a “monumental mistake.” In a statement, he confirmed that it was he who edited the hair, and attributes the reasoning being to his own ignorance rather than any kind of hate.
Nyong’o finished by stating that the fulfillment she usually feels gracing covers has been diminished in the case of Grazia UK. What is normally a platform to “show other dark, kinky-haired people… that they are beautiful just the way they are” was lost upon seeing that the final images had omitted characteristics of her native heritage.
[via The Guardian]
Lead image courtesy of Marc Pascual.
Creative chose the photo, creative put the cover together. Control/direction falls on them. Not the photographers fault.
Wouldn't have apologized. They could have done worse really. Oooh, such a big surprise from a magazine shoot, they altered a part of the model to suit their vision.
Well of course you wouldn't have apologized, you just don't get it, as usual.
Reginald, of course I get it. Unfortunately thats the industry. I don't think it should have anything to do with race, or any form of bigotry. The cover designers had a certain look they wanted. They used the model as a tool to achieve this. I don't think its any more about her race than it is the fact that they had a vision to achieve. And in all honesty, for the model/actress to get worked up about the whole thing is beyond me. If I (a "slightly" overweight, white male, with short hair) were to have modelled for a shoot would, not get bent out of shape if they slimmed me down, "tanned" my skin, and gave me long hair (or worse, a man bun) to facilitate their overall final image desired. I think at the end of the day, we've all become overly sensitive. By no means am I saying that our society does not have some major issues, that need changing, but I am saying that in this case particularly, I think its being blown out of proportion.
Agree! The whole modeling industry in general drives me crazy. Glad I have no desire to ever get into that kind of work.
Shooting an actress for a cover related to an interview inside the very same magazine has as much to do with the "modeling industry" as shooting Donald Trump for a Time Magazine cover.
BLOWN WAY out of proportion. This one and the Solange Knowles hair issue for evening standard magazine or so, I don't remember, which was exactly the same reason as this Lupita issue I imagine - to fit the text layout.
I don't feel it had anything to do wtih race to be really honest... but I understand why it would be perceived as anti-black.... nevertheless magazines have been altering bodies, faces and hairs for yonks for me to see this as racist - especially for the purpose of fitting the text layout onto the photo.
Allen Cooper, please do not lecture anyone regarding "the industry" or using "the model as a tool to achieve blabla" if you seem to lack the understanding between a photograph of a model presenting fashion and the cover shot of an actress that is used to promote an interview with her in the very magazine.
She is not modelling here, it is about her as a person!
Personally, if a model is upset or offended that part of her body or image was altered, I see no harm in apologizing. Her feelings are valid.
Kinda shows just how people "want" to see african americans.
However, there are a series of steps these images go through before the print version is arrived at. Don't buy all the "It wasn't me" baloney.
Anyway who cares...both look pretty good t my eyes.
I'm surprised by the comments so far. Remember, she's an Academy Award winning actress with her name on the front page of the magazine, not just some model. I'd have a hard time imagining say Amy Adams getting a photoshop buzzcut unbeknownst to her for a magazine front page and have that go unnoticed.
This kind of altering should have definitely been approved by Lupita.
Over the top apology. 'Monumental mistake' for editing a hair style. Seriously! But apologies are trendy right now and it's what makes extra headlines these days.
Ok, I like the edited image - nice strong curve of neck and shoulder. Do it in portrait and do not discuss it with vip model is unprofessional. Making it racial problem is even more unprofessional.
If it were a stock photo of an anonymous model, then sure, creative license. But, it's not. It's a photo that's supposed to represent a particular individual, and it fails utterly in doing that. Sometimes a photo is just an image. Other times, it's a document. The photographer should know the difference.
Don't want your photos/videos to be retouched/altered? Don't work as a model/actress. Simple solution. Heck, other women even cut their hair in real life to get a specific job. Thats just bs....
See above.
Mistake? Perhaps. Monumental mistake? I think not...
Where is the rolls eyes button?
Sooo smoothing out hairs and no bun is eurocentric?
They basically gave her a virtual haircut. Nothing actors don't do to get a role.
I'm not seeing it. Can someone help me out here?
EDIT: Bt I do concede that if this editing choice was made to fit the text, they could have easily called her up and tell her "Hey BTW that cool bun is in the way of the overlay, do you mind this edit? *emails the 'shopped bun*".
Not hard to do and way more considerate.
The "role" she's playing here is herself. The photographer didn't respect her creative choices.
Though the subject can nourish a lot of talk about nuances and meanings, I'm just glad to see that they resolve the issue with elegance.
No justifications from the photographer, an elegant apology and he can learn from the experience and continue working on this, today more than ever, changing world.
I'm learning too from this. From today on, I'm going to always show the finish photo to my subject before publishing in any medium. See if she/he has something to say about the final results, and in that case, change it.
Respect for the people you are working with, for his taste and sensibility about her/his image and what the image conveys to society, that's the history here!
For all the "she's just a model, the photographer can do what he wants, what's the big deal?" crowd, how about I do a corporate headshot of you, then photoshop all your clothes off and put you in a jockstrap and put the photo on bus stop ads for drug rehab programs?
This isn't a stock shot, it's representing a publicly identified individual. Big difference.
Also, a photographer should respect models. They're not marionettes.
Let the record show that Bob and Nick voted against respecting models.
Ha yes. Sophism isn't very far in online discussion.
Frankly I'm susprised we didn't get a Nazi reference yet...
Looks like we just did. Klassy.
The type is easier to see and fits better without her ponytail. That might have been their thought process.
of the three images, the one she is complaining about is the best-as in my favourite. modern woman looking beautiful and sophisticated. it's all about publicity Imo.
Speaking as a black man who has worn a 'Fro since 1968, I don't think such an edit necessarily needed "profuse" apology--depending on the use in the article.
In this case, it appears (from the cover) that this was an editorial story about Lupita herself as a celebrity. In that case, it's in more of a journalistic mode and the photographer should have avoided changing a feature as individually characteristic as her chosen hairstyle.
However, if this had been a fashion spread, IMO the objection to the editing would have no validity. Short-cropped hair is just as natural for African women as an "Afro-puff." More so, actually, and removing it improved the layout of the cover.
If they had edited out your Fro of 49 years Kirk, then that's a little different. If a person searches "Lupita Nyongo photos" it's clear Lupita changes her hair style quite often-a few of them being similar to the photographers cover edit.
I'm not sure you got the two points I made, David. If a magazine did a story about me as a photographer and took a picture of me to illustrate that story, I'd expect them to depict me as I chose to look that day for that story.
OTOH, if they were doing a story about photographers and used me as an illustration for that story, then they'd be artistically free to edit themselves silly.
The difference is whether the mode is more journalistic or more creative.
I got your point quite clearly Kirk, just a little skeptical about fuss over a style she herself duplicates from time to time.
Not Racist at all. Maybe Racially insensitive (Unintentionally of course...but that too is a slippery slope) But I would chalk this up with the industry creating their own standards of what beauty is, or what a perfect body or face is, with all the nip tucking we do via Photoshop. Racist=The worlds most overused and misused word. Signed.....This Black Man.
This is quite surprising to me coming from Europe, it might be a cultural thing too so please accept my apologies in advance if i'm totally off the bat.
To me, magazines are private entities, selling their pages to advertising companies, filling them with ads and content to support the ads, preparing the buyer to consume, which to extend is what the director of a large TV corporation stated a few years ago. (Television programs are here to prepare the brain of views to react positively to advertising time, placed at the appropriate moment, for whom businesses pay to be seen).
Now when I watch a movie, I know the reality is not what I see. Yes my brain can't make the difference, that's why we cry, laugh, smile, jump whilst watching a movie, but I for sure know the actor or actress is not his or her real self, but they are here for the show.
Same holds true for magazines, models are like actors, they are chameleons, and sometimes pose for one topic or another, and their bodies, figures, are a "placeholder" for what is sold or showcased.
May it be a heritage which I totally understand, it would be like an actor accepting a role and then saying... but you're not cutting my hair, or you're not going to enhance any feature whatsoever, because I don't want to. I can see that she could see within that a "what white people want to see" edit, but to me it's more about ... who buys the magazine, and we are working to support our clientèle.
If apple started doing non-slick products because of "heritage" they would loose their clients, and that would sound totally unrealistic to anyone, but in this case it requires apologies... and that is kind of odd. A bit like when teachers apologize for telling kids off or giving them bad grades because they are not good and parents going at them for that because their kid is certainly not like they describe.
Now let's hope i don't get totally slashed for that view, but I am perplex about the whole topic.
He did not have to apologize, that picture was taken with aesthetic sensibilities in mind and what makes a good cover. Well, if Lupita wants to play this media game, that is fine, but photographer should be more confident in his artistic choice.
So basically they made her "bald"? I kind of prefer the "bald" edit.... there's something more streamline and elegant about it, allows me appreciate her face/beauty/make up more...