Aaron B. sent us a link to a fashion spread called Out of Africa at the Daily Mail featuring individuals from, the accompanying text specifies, ”the Surma and Mursi tribes of East Africa’s Omo Valley.” Please scroll through the images and see the commentary below (as well Aaron’s own illluminating interpretation at his blog).
First, notice how the individuals in the images are supposed to represent “Africa.” Africa, of course, is an immense continent with dozens of countries and hundreds of cultures. But here a couple “tribes” are supposed to represent all of Africa. And those tribes are notably primitive. Anne McClintock* coined the excellent term “anachronistic space” to describe the bizarre way in which we tend to imagine (mostly subconsciously) that, as we go from the U.S. to Africa, we are going back in time and visiting our own primitive selves.
Second, Aaron notes how the author of the accompanying text seems “struck by the strange paradox of Africans having fashion.” Because fashion is a modern thing, of course, and these are just primitives. Here is some of the text:
With colourful make-up of bright yellows, startling whites and rich earth-reds, flamboyant accessories and extraordinarily elaborate decorations, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the designs in these images originated in the fevered mind of some leading fashionista.
Yet far from the catwalks of New York, London or Paris, these looks are the sole creation of the Surma and Mursi tribes of East Africa’s Omo Valley.
Inspired by the wild trees, exotic flowers and lush vegetation of the area bordering Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan, these tribal people have created looks that put the most outlandish creations of Western catwalk couturiers to shame.
…
As they paint each other’s bodies and make bold decisions about their outfits (all without the aid of mirrors), it seems that the only thing that motivates them is the sheer fun of creating their looks, and showing them off to other members of the tribe.
Notice the way that the author exoticizes them with references to color, a natural frivolity, and the use of words like “fevered,” “outlandish,” “wild,” and “exotic” (exotic to who?). They are motivated by “sheer fun.” And aren’t we delighted?
Some more questions to consider:
What does it mean that people in the U.K. (and the U.S.) are consuming these images? What is the relationship between these images and colonialism? These images and the historical emergence of the idea of race? These images and the continued re-inscription of race as a social construction?
Anyway, how often do you see non-models in fashion shoots? What is the reason for presenting them as “authentic”? What kind of authenticity are they going for?
Or are they really from the Surma and Mursi tribes? Or are they professional models? Did they really decorate themselves? What kinds of possible fictions (other than “authentic” “Africa”) are involved in this fashion shoot?
What are the consequences of portraying “Africa” this way? How do such images interact with “development” rhetoric about how Africa is un- or under-developed, developing, or undevelopable?
Who benefitted from this photo shoot? Did the individuals get paid? How much?
* REFERENCE: Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Context by Anne McClintock (London: Routledge, 1995).
3 Comments
If these were photos were presented as “art” rather than “fashion”, I bet people’s feelings would be very different.
“these tribal people have created looks”… “bold decisions” … “it seems that the only thing that motivates them is the sheer fun of creating their looks, and showing them off to other members of the tribe.”
What if it’s not just about creating a “look”, for “sheer fun” and to “show off” - what if these modes of dress and face-coloring have a depth of meaning in their culture that escapes the small-minded “hemlines up, hemlines down” fashion discourse of western culture? Also, absent context, we have no way of knowing whether the “looks” depicted in these pictures represent “bold decisions” or completely ordinary modes of dress within these tribes.
I think Nizam puts her finger on it. How do we separate the question of why the writer or reader of the femail section of the Daily Mail would find these images powerful (and why) from the reasons why the people in the images might themselves have chosen to array themselves that way? The ways those images (and the text) frame their subjects makes it very hard to answer that question, since we only see those costumes being worn in very “posed” and “high fashion” ways, and it’s therefore very hard to get a sense for what kinds of attitudes the women themselves might have for what their dress signifies. The article implies that this is just normal everyday attire, which seems unlikely, but to have a sense for why people would dress this way, you’d have to know on what kinds of occasions they would make that effort. We also have to consider the extent to which these costumes were being worn specifically the photographer; there’s a very long history of Africans playing “native” for Western audiences when they see something in it for them.
4 Trackbacks
[...] would comment on them, except I just recently wrote almost exactly what I would write for this post here. You might also want to look here and here and here and also here for historical context. I [...]
[...] to other interesting fashion spreads here, here, here, here, and [...]
[...] to other interesting fashion spreads here, here, here, here, and [...]
[...] to think a little bit about the social construction of race (see also here, here, here, and here). Comments from both me and Gwen after the [...]