I wouldn’t consider this blackface at all. I actually like the shoe (i like weird unique looking things). This is completely different from the prada, gucci, and moncler designs imo.
5 Likes
So I guess we should just send a memo for the fashion houses to nix the idea of single red lips on black with a face on any fashion item. That might keep them out of trouble.
If that logo had eyes it probably would take on a very different meaning.
2 Likes
Specifically it’s an exaggerated part of the white Mick Jagger’s face, on a black background that could be interpreted as skin.
That’s a stretch. The Rolling Stones logo has been used in isolation or on light backgrounds at least as often as it has appeared against dark backgrounds, and it’s a single body part rather than a face. If it included eyes and was primarily used against a dark background then you’d have a better case.
17 Likes
And I think that’s a poor interpretation given the artist gave the specific influences behind the design and logo and it has never exclusively been part of a face. Just solid backgrounds which span a variety of colors.
Sometimes a cake is just a cake.
@Brainspore beat me to it. I owe you a Coke man.
10 Likes
I believe Perry is the one making that comparison when she said that the design was a “nod to modern art.”
I can’t really say for sure that Picasso’s taking influence from African art was motivated by profit (and even if money was a factor, it certainly wasn’t the sole factor) but I feel safe in assuming that Perry’s attempt to do something similar is motivated by profit (and only by profit).
Right, but whether the background was white or black, the facial feature in question was specifically that of a specific white person. The features on Katy Perry’s fugly shoes are not a reference to those of a specific person, white or black.
If the eyes on the black leather shoe were brown instead of blue, would that, in folks’ opinion, make it less blackface-y? (Not that it would make the shoes any less ugly)
Because black people themselves also have faces on the front of their heads…
Did anybody notice that one of the blackface shoes isn’t even black? It must be an oppressive kind of gold-blackface. It has accordingly been pulled from stores because it is meant to insult gold people. Also, somebody on the internet said it’s ugly.
7 Likes
I think it’s unlikely the shoes were designed with the intent of invoking blackface, but someone probably should have noticed that the lips/eyes combo on black leather had that effect and nixed the things right there.
The Rolling Stone logo doesn’t have that effect even when used against a dark background because it’s not a face, it’s just a pair of disembodied lips. Same deal with the opening sequence from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
16 Likes
THIS.
Because I am not really sure what is being argued above.
5 Likes
I don’t know. When I first saw these I just thought they were an inept rip-off of Dali’s collaborations with Schiaparelli.
6 Likes
The key differences is that Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole
2 Likes
No? I can rectify that.
Pablo Picasso was an asshole.
24 Likes
He kind of was, actually. Especially towards the women in his life.
25 Likes
The shoes that offended some people were part of a Katy Perry Collection launched last summer which was sold in US stores such as Dillard’s and Walmart.
Offence seems to take a long time to percolate.
1 Like
There’s something wrong with me because my first thought (maybe after Mr Potato Head) was the Master Control Program from Tron.
3 Likes
Without anything other than the mouth, the black registers (to most, I think) as an abstract background rather than skin. Add another facial feature and everything changes.
Blackface warning: image link
The familiarity of the logo, as a charicature of Mick Jagger, maybe influences perceptions too.
8 Likes
Way to use googly eyes for evil, Rob. 
3 Likes
And @anon61221983 yeah, a fair chunk of Hannah Gadsby’s Nanette was about how Picasso was a gigantic arsehole.
10 Likes
Shouldn’t the gold/yellow ones be pulled too, for being “yellowface” ?
Honestly… it’s a shoe. From last summer. It’s available in multiple colors, one of which somewhat resembles blackface (picture a foot in the shoe, obscuring the white bits and it’d just look like a… black… face). Blowing up the internet over stupid sh*t like this is why the GOP laughs at the left.
2 Likes
