Social media recently blew up over H&M's controversial hoodie ad, which features a black boy modeling a sweatshirt stating "Coolest monkey in the jungle." Other sweatshirts from the same line, stating "Survival expert," were modeled by white children. Clearly the images of the young models are filled with racist undertones. But is it realistic to think that H&M didn't even think of a possible issue? How does this reflect the photographers who took the image? And why have we yet to learn from our mistakes in the industry?
It very well could be a possibility that the Swedish clothing company did not consider the potential repercussions of customers. Perhaps they weren't entirely aware of the way these images would be perceived by consumers halfway across the world. Either way, this decision cost them. Music artist The Weeknd, who has worked with the company in the past, cut ties after seeing the ad. “I'm shocked and embarrassed after seeing this photo,” he said. “I am deeply offended and will not be working with H&M anymore.”
It's difficult to fault one person in particular for this ad. At some point down the line, whether it be during the photography, postproduction, or publishing of the photo and ad, someone had to have realized it wasn't the best idea. In response to the criticism, H&M said Monday in a statement to the Washington Post:
We are deeply sorry that the picture was taken, and we also regret the actual print. Therefore, we have not only removed the image from our channels, but also the garment from our product offering globally.
Relate this issue and the repercussions to similar content published in the past. Last year, Dove received extensive backlash after sharing an ad showing a black woman turning white after taking off her brown sweatshirt. A Dove soap bottle sits next to the woman.
Or consider this controversial laundry detergent ad published in China. It shows a Chinese woman stuffing a physically dirty black man into a washing machine while putting a detergent packet in his mouth. He then comes out a few moments later. But this time he isn't black, he is a sparkly-clean Chinese man.
This next one is unrelated to race, but again raises concern regarding publishing and taking sensitive photos. In December 2012, the New York Post's cover photo showed a man standing on subway tracks, with a train unbearably close. Beneath the man, large white text screams: "DOOMED." The Post faced heavy criticism for publishing the photo. The photographer, freelancer R. Umar Abbasi, also received criticism for taking the photo in the first place. He was questioned as to why he didn't help the man about to die.
The National Press Photographers' Code of Ethics states: “While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.” Perhaps Abassi was following his moral obligation as a journalist, and this is why he didn't help the man on the train tracks.
Consider South African photojournalist's "Struggling Girl" image, for example. In 1993, Kevin Carter was photographing the famine that struck Sudan. He witnessed a girl resting, and watched as a vulture landed behind her. He waited 20 minutes for the bird to get closer to the girl in order to take the best image possible. He had yet to realize that he captured one of the most "controversial photographs in the history of photojournalism." Little did viewers know that immediately after clicking the shutter, Carter chased the vulture away. But he didn't help the girl. Like the vulture, he left the scene, too. However, Carter was a photojournalist in a time when it was common practice to not touch famine victims for fear of spreading disease. Still, could he have helped her in any other way?
Carter obstructed the real-life event only after he took the image. Apparently, Abbasi attempted to help the man on the train tracks by firing off his flash to warn the operator. Obviously this didn't help. I could somewhat understand if Abbasi, in the heat of the moment, thought that he was simply capturing unobstructed real-life events, as a photojournalist ultimately should. But in the end, in this case, I truly believe Abbasi's moral obligation as a human to help other humans, outweighed his journalistic obligation of capturing the moment.
The American Society of Media Photographers Member Code of Ethics states in its "Responsibility to Clients" section:
Conduct oneself in a professional manner and represent a client’s best interests within the limits of one’s professional responsibilities.
The National Press Photographers' Code of Ethics also encourages its members:
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics, and art to develop a unique vision and presentation.
The Professional Photographers of America Code of Ethics simply states to its members:
Each member and participant shall agree to use the highest levels of professionalism, honesty, and integrity in all relationships with colleagues, clients, and the general public.
Being a world citizen (hopefully) correlates to at least some understanding of global history, and understanding that race is a sensitive topic in any country. Being a human being (hopefully) correlates to the desire to help others, rather then watch them perish right in front of one's eyes. On top of being human, all members related to the publication of the controversial content discussed above work in the photography or design industry. Or at least have a strong connection to it. Why didn't they think twice about the repercussions tied to their decision to publish the content. Did they not have viewers' interpretations in mind?
One common theme threads all of these cases together: at some point during the process of sparking the idea, photographing, postproduction, and publishing the photo, video, or ad, no one seemed to think twice about how the published content would be interpreted by viewers. If someone did, they didn't bother voicing their opinion, or didn't voice it loud enough. Regardless, the industry has made too many of these mistakes in the past and being oversensitive to publishing sensitive content is way over due.
What do you think?
Not much interesting, this year. CP+ should be better. I hope.
Check out my article prior to this, about a lens announced at CES: https://fstoppers.com/gear/nikon-announces-180-400mm-f4-vr-lens-211493
And yes, other announcements from CES have been covered, too.
Just commenting on the first two stories; H&M and Dove. I think they are both sad examples of people waiting to pile on to anything that could be considered offensive but they don't need to be.
Have you guys ever seen a catalog photoshoot? You're literally snapping thousands of pictures a day as fast as possible. If H&M never used black child models but then only used one for this one shot, you'd have a great argument, but they have super diverse models in their advertising. A year ago I met an advertising executive from H&M who was actually from Africa. It's obviously not a "racist" company and if I were the photographer, I totally would have taken this picture without giving it a single thought. I probably would have taken the shot without even reading it.
And now, because of today's climate, H&M and companies like them cannot try to explain themselves or justify their decision without being attacked from every angle and boycotted so instead, they have to issue canned apologies and, in this case, pull the entire shirt from stores.
The Dove ad is another perfect example of this. Every single post you've seen about that ad(including the ones posted on Fstoppers) were edited to insinuate a black woman using dove to get "clean" and becoming a white woman. That's not what the ad was at all. It was a mix of all races changing. But Dove couldn't explain that out of fear of a boycott so they just had to apologize when they were literally trying to make the most inclusive, non-racist ad ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_pzWScdwo
Dont use minority models and they get shit on. Use minority models but put them in a shirt that could possibly be taken as racist and they get shit on. I think what they should do is do everything in front of a green screen so the only thing showing is the shirt. Problem solved.
Lee, man, I don't see eye to eye with you always, but you hit nail on the head man.
I always joke, "life is one big dirty-joke," because you can make anything sound dirty depending on how you say it; if you look for something, you can find it, but that doesn't mean it's actually there.
If people were actually AWARE and CARED about the things that have happened in the past (black people referred to as monkeys in this case) we wouldn't see things like this today. The problem is that people choose to be blind to the subject of racism because it makes them uncomfortable.
Put yourself in a black mans shoes and reconsider what the first thing that comes into your mind when you see something like this, something YOU have experienced time and again. Something thats been happening for how long?
The uproar is really not for no reason. If you were black, Im pretty certain you would understand.
Hey Jabu, I appreciate your response. It makes sense to me. I certainly can't understand how it makes you feel and I don't want to pretend to. But when you see this shirt, and it makes you feel bad, does that have to mean that the photographer or company that published it is racist? Even if you do believe in this case it was purposeful, can't you imagine something like this just slipping through the cracks? If I was the photographer, I really wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with this shirt, even if I had read it. Maybe I'm just naive or grew up sheltered, I don't know, but if I see a black child with a monkey on his shirt or backpack or water bottle or a stuffed monkey, I would never jump to some racist thought.
And do you still feel the same way about the Dove ad after hearing the whole story from the model herself?
"But when you see this shirt, and it makes you feel bad, does that have to mean that the photographer or company that published it is racist?"
Why would that matter Lee?
You agree the image is offensive. It is perfectly possible for the photographer and the company to "not be racist" and the image to still be offensive. This is a strawman.
I've shot catalog. And I would have noticed this. My assistant would have picked it up, my stylist would have picked it up, the digital tech would have noticed this. Working at a fast pace is no excuse.
And I don't even live in America.
Its good for you to admit that you live in America and you wouldn't have picked up on this: that you are naive and have lived a sheltered life. But now that you know the negative association exists, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to do some research, find out more about this subject, talk to people, maybe run some article from people of colour about how to avoid this sort of thing in the future?
Or are you going to just going to continue to be defensive?
"Today's climate" isn't the same as "yesterday's climate." Its just something you are just going to have to get used too. If you post offensive stuff people are going to call it out. I can completely understand how this happened. I think that H&M's response was appropriate and proportionate and good. And I think people were right to call them out in the first place.
"And do you still feel the same way about the Dove ad after hearing the whole story from the model herself?"
Lola (the model has a name) is most certainly allowed to express her opinion. But you shouldn't use her opinion as a shield.
I personally don't think the image is offensive and I certainly don't think the shirt is offensive but I understand that other people can find it offensive. But, if we can agree that this was a mistake rather than an attempt at hate speech, wouldn't a normal outcome be to take down the image or swap the image with a white kid? Why would the shirt need to discontinued? Obviously, it's not a big deal for a company like H&M that comes out with new shirt designs every day, but to me it feels like a strange decision. If the shirt itself isn't offensive, then why does it need to be pulled? I wouldn't expect Dove to pull their soap from stores because people didn't like their ad. And are you still convinced the Dove ad was racist? The ad was literally meant to be the most racially inclusive ad possible.
Before we go any further Lee: who has been claiming this is hate speech?
It would be helpful if you would stop resorting to hyperbole.
Thanks for understanding that "other people find it offensive." But you are only going to continue to struggle to understand topics like this by thinking "this is somebody else's problem."
Because H&M's decision to pull the shirt isn't the issue. The issue is "you personally don't think this image was offensive." You are welcome to hold this opinion. But now that you have been exposed to the historical context of this image, are you still of the opinion the image isn't offensive?
I'm trying to be respectful but it may not be coming off that way.
Many people, including yourself, have suggested that someone must have known what they were doing and this couldn't have simply been a mistake. That's why I brought up the point about it being racist or hate speech vs a simple accident.
I do understand why you and others find it offensive and I've certainly learned not to ever take a picture like this.
But Lee, that wasn't what I suggested.
I said that I would have noticed it. I said my team would have noticed it. But I also acknowledged that I understand how this could have happened. At no time did I either suggest or imply that "this couldn't have been a simple mistake."
You are reading too much into this. The image was offensive to many people. Those people made their feelings known. H&M heard and acknowledged those feelings, removed the images and the product.
That should really be it.
Then I think we agree 100%. I just don’t like stuff getting blown out of proportion and piling on. If h&m made a mistake and a group of people can point it out and the mistake is fixed. Great!
I don't get it. I call my nieces and nephew monkeys all the time. It almost always gets a laugh. In fact I'd buy this hoodie for them without issue. Sometimes people just need to lighten up, despite popular opinion not everything is racist.
I was walking in a store the other day, and I saw a hoodie on a white male model, it said, 'Saltiest cracker in the box."
I chuckled at it wry, half-dark, humor; my friend lost their shit.
Really though -this article brings up great morality points, I wish we didn't rely on the opening story to get the conversation going.
Thanks. I agree. The opening story was meant to act as a launch pad into the over-arching theme of deciding what photos to publish and the thought process that goes into it, and how it affects the way the industry is viewed.
I think wrapping the other two far more serious stories into this one is just trying to sensationalize a fairly mundane issue (not racism but reading something into a clearly non racist t-shirt slogan).
I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe I failed to express my thought fully in the article. The point I was trying to make is that I believe more thought should be had leading to the publication of images, overall. Especially ones in ad campaigns or covering sensitive topics. I'm not saying we should avoid publishing the photographs altogether because they're sensitive, but rather that we as photographers and photo publishers/editors should try to better understand how the message we're putting out into the world will be perceived. I don't think this is a mundane issue at all, but rather a serious aspect of what we do as creatives.
Let's be honest, in today's highly charged political climate, the photographer/marketing team/designer, etc. responsible for the now infamous hoodie pic are stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The clothing line is jungle themed. It doesn't matter which shirt from this line the boy wore, someone would be screaming racism. "Mangrove Jungle Survival Expert???? Those racists are suggesting that sweet little black kid go back to Africa!!!" I can't help but think the biggest problem here isn't the ad... It's the viewer.
Instead of focusing on the perceived racism, people should recognize that that kid completely owned the ad. The look on his face, the stance, the body language in the shot. That kid rocked it.
"But is it realistic to think that H&M didn't even think of a possible issue?"
Absolutely.
Perhaps the image having being published by a Swedish company, possibly shot and edited in Sweden, may have something to do with it. Regardless of how well they speak English they may not be aware of some subtleties of the cultural context in some English-speaking countries. Point in case: it had to be explicitly pointed to me (not that long time ago actually) that the word 'monkey' may mean more than just what's on the tin. Somehow I didn't get it from all of the American movies I watched ;-)
I would say that they (or any other company) should have a routine vetting procedure for any target market to avoid future unintended faux pas.
That said I reckon we should perhaps all relax a bit and start treating skin colour for only what it is: a colour. I appreciate the race-related issues are not gone even now but possibly one small step towards a better future would be to relax and don't feel that everything must be overthought as possibly offensive. I appreciate this heavily depends on the social context though.
I think that Dove ad was very clever and funny but then I'm not racist and for me it was simply about changing person's skin colour together with the tshirt. Would someone think it offensive if a model changed her hat and hair colour together with it? No?
I agree. I wouldn't have thought of it that way, and I didn't, until someone pointed it out to me. But I can understand how people, specifically blacks, would be offended. I think it'd would be wise to learn from the past. The way the company hopes their message to be interpreted could be entirely different from the way it actually is.
Would have loved to hear a black photographers take on this. 🤷🏾♂️
Maybe people should stop being so sensitive to every little thing these days, it really is getting so tiring. What it the people that made this and approved it for print were black... would that make any difference? It's just hoodie on a cute kid. I'd buy it for my nephews..
I know I'm gonna regret this, but..
Seriously, people are just being too sensitive on the H&M issue. I didn't knew that a monkey is equals to an african-american boy.
This is just nitpicking and trying to apply any "world issue" that it fits into. And most likely, the kid is now sad that his fun photoshoot suddenly became a bad thing.
With regard to the Swedish photographer shooting the H&M ad, the photographer probably didn't think it was a problem because the child's mother didn't think it was a problem--and has said so on social media. The picture bugs me, but I personally remember "White" and "Colored" signs in America. I'm not going to claim every mother and photographer in the world should understand how everyone else in the world is going to interpret their pictures...because I'm sure not going to.
Regarding the Dove ad, there was nothing that was wrong about it during the shooting. The error came in editing--if they'd reversed the sequence and not had the very specific sequence of black-to-white, there would not have been any issue.
With regard to Kevin Carter's "Struggling Girl," Tim still doesn't have the whole story. At the time, the girl's mother was getting emergency food just a short distance away and returned shortly after the picture was taken.
With regard to the incident on the subway track--sometimes stuff just happens too fast right in front of you that you can't weigh two or three different actions. If you're lucky, you take the first action that comes to mind, the one your muscle memory is most trained to take...and don't just freeze. Most people would have simply frozen.
None of these photographers was evil or stupid or immoral....or even thoughtless.
I’m pretty surprised Kevin Carters Pulitzer Prize winning photograph is in here. He scared the vulture away and the mother likely retrieved her daughter after getting food from the Red Cross Truck for which they were there. The image was also used as a catalyst for famine worldwide. He has received too much grief over this image and I have no doubt it (unfairly) contributed to his suicide 6 months later. Kevin Carter is a hero amongst photojournalism along with his mates who recorded apartheid for a positive outcome in South Africa. But it’s akways great to see his image, regardless of the context. Just wish it was phrased to show it in a more positive way.
I definitely should have made that more clear. I agree. It's an incredible image with a very powerful backstory. The image did act as a catalyst for world attention on the issue in that part of the globe, but it also caused Carter to commit suicide because of the public's backlash against his actions as a photographer, and the decision to publish the photo. This is moreso what I was trying to get at - the decision to publish a photo and the thinking that goes into it.