Untrue. Many people have.
I agree that trying to say the the iconic Rolling Stones logo constitutes blackface when on a black background is a big stretch; as the image was originally a caricature of Mick Jagger’s lips, and not a bigoted parody of Black people.
They have a Mr. Potato Head vibe.
Looks intentional by the designer l to me. It’s not like it’s impossible to put faces on shoes and not be questioned.
I dunno about you, but my mind is blown; who knew?
Indeed! I am so glad this fact was explained to me in such a condescending manner…
I can’t find it now, but a while back there was a comic about drawing people of color and what pitfalls to avoid… I’ll see if I can dig it up and post it.
I remember that one; it was a good piece…
was this it?
Or was it the same guy, at least? Here is the kickstarter (from last year):
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shabazz/how-to-draw-black-people/description
My personal favorite:
Hah I forgot about that part of it. Yeah she goes off. Deservedly.
Poor Thing. Although, I honestly don’t think she probably considered what the dark colored shoes would look like. Foresight is clearly not her thing. After all, this is the woman who looked at Russell Brand and decided that he would make a happily-ever-after Prince Charming.
I actually believe that in this case it wasn’t intentional, but that’s not really an excuse. We live in a world where surprisingly little progress has been made against racism and this sort of ancient stereotype is still alive and well. It’s the responsibility of designers to be aware of how their work will be interpreted, even if racist imagery wasn’t their intention. I’d say it’s sad that they can’t just make something as simple as an abstract face without having racists dictate the message of the art, but like others have said, those are some really ugly shoes, so… not so sad.
Are you remembering this perhaps?
The beige one looks a bit French.
Why does Katy Perry hate the French.
Why does she think Frenchface is acceptable?
Apology to the French NOT ACCEPTED.
The future will laugh at us for this.
If by the future, you mean next week, they won’t even have heard of Katy Perry’s shoes.
If you meant that the future will laugh at present-day concerns over racism, well, I’m sure the racists of the future will still be asses then too.
They’re women’s shoes. Isn’t that the point?
(It’s the only explanation that seems to make sense.)
I couldn’t give a quarter-shit about Katy Perry or shoes or fashion in general, but this is simply knee-jerk over-reaction. Sure THIS image looks damning, but if you look deeper you’ll see that this single image is EXCEEDINGLY misleading.
Consider: “They were also available in blue, gold, graphite, lead, nude, pink, red and silver …” … soooo … Not so much a “blackface” thing really, is it.
I mean, freakin LOOK at the images of the shoes that AREN’T made of black leather. They’re the exact same fucking thing!! So having shoes that are dyed black is somehow directly related to blackness-as-a-racial-thing? That’s utterly idiotic.
WTF people, get a freakin grip on reality here!!! JEEZ!
Have you SEEN the crazy shit of fashion couture? LOL
I’m sorry if you’re offended.
Oh FFS … appropriation? LMAO
