September 26, 2005
S'cuze me Mister HombreMusic
I’ve got a hot-off-the-press issue of GQ in my hands, and guess who I see? Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam, staring right back at me.
The article is titled “British Rule” (hmm…somehow so familiar, so soon) and it’s a style spread:
The hair, the sounds, the suits. For more than 40 years, the Brits have consistently defined the style of rock’n’roll. In this exclusive decade-spanning portfolio, photographer David Bailey proves that they’ve never looked sharper. [link]
David Bailey is, of course, an important figure in the music-fashion-celebrity matrix, seeing that a film was based on him and all. But who the hell are these musicians? Let’s see…we’ve got Pulp, and Blur. Beatles/Stones mentions: Eight. From the closest thing to a Brit OG (Paul Weller) to the youngest of the new tarts (Razorlight) everyone agrees that the Kinks were bloody marvelous and underappreciated. Sure, whatever….pleez. I could say more, but my fangs are already bloody.
Into this sea of insular uniformity they’ve thrown in the Sepia Idol herself, and she doesn’t disappoint:
DEFINING POP MOMENT: “Late ’80s Ragg and the pirate radio stations. It was great discovering music that never got played on mainstream radio.”
WANTED TO BE WHEN SHE WAS A TEEN: “Muhammad Ali.”
HER LOOK AT THE TIME: “Lace leggings, short hair shaved at the back like Sal-N-Pepa’s, and big hoop earrings.”
UNDERRATED UK ARTIST: “Gomez. I’ve always been made to feel bad about loving them.”
STYLE ICON SHE EMULATED: “Johnny Rotten - it lasted a week!”
The write-up on her, though, is nothing short of hackneyed, exoticizing, misinformed gibberish:
That awkward genre “world music” used to mean “music from a place you need shots to visit.” Globalization has changed that and the genre’s freshest star is British-passport holder Maya Arulpragasam - or M.I.A. The MC and producer epitomizes all the danger and glorious complication of the modern world. Raised in Sri Lanka, she fled that government because of the brutal government crackdown on terrorism. A minor irony is that her father is thought to be an officer in the Tamil Tiger terrorist movement, which inspired that crackdown. A few years ago, the art-school grad started performing the bouncy, grime-inspired tunes that make up her debut, Arular, which mixes unsettling references to terrorist warfare with saucy girl-tales of London street life. A thoroughly modern militant.
Glorious complication? Minor IRONY?! Modern MILITANT??!! This is exactly the sort of “I buy organic dogfood” perspective that MIA has railed against. Did this writer bother to read more than a press release about her? WTF!?
Oh, one more thing. She’s wearing a Gucci dress.
I’ll be in my room, mourning the imminent shelving of Pegasus earrings and home made jumpsuits. Please don’t come after me. I need a moment alone…yah yah heyyyyy?
cicatrix on September 26, 2005 10:35 PM in Fashion, Music · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
i won't do my "A+" schtick...this time....
i think everyone on both sides of the MIA arguement knew this might have been coming
no you should. She's never rocked a T&A look before. And this is close to a crotch shot. ugh.
Oh, and by the way? She's THE ONLY WOMAN.
Click on the link and see the slideshow.
Cicatrix, up until this very moment I hated seeing so many MIA posts on this site. With this post you have made me take pause. I salute you. ;)
thanks Abhi!
er...does this mean you understand the love? Or did I say something so briliant that I myself am blind to it? :D
love the hair,
love the smoldering eyes,
love the green,
love the gucci,
love the cleavage...
hate the pale pink lipstick that all the blonde girls in seventh grade wore. that's not a shade meant for brown girls. blech.
sigh. so close to perfection, yet...
hot body - check. tee hee. J/K.I thought she was pretty before, anyhoo.
She wore Chloe before (the pineapple or banana jumpsuit was not a homemade jumpsuit), and now she's wearing Gucci - not that much of a stretch in terms of price; both in the thousand dollar price range. Although I like her unique style, this dress is also sexy for nightime, no? I don't find it that crotchy - she's a big girl (if she was 17, not 27 or another blue-eyed blonde it'd be another story...).
The article on the other hand...
Anna,
I think it's high-time we start Sepia Fashion magazine. I'll take the photographs, and you can write the articles.
Wow: Cicatrix, I never knew Blow-up was based on David Bailey...that film is ridiculously with it, even four decades later...the sequence with the photographer and the two aspiring models who show up at his studio: "Exhibit A" for Kundera's line to the effect that it is the ambiguous that makes something the erotic...
...which, btw, is also true for this shot of MIA...I think it's great (few look at the camera in quite this way)...
I hope I'm not doing that "she's mine! you can't have her!" thing that nerdy music fans do when their obsession becomes known to a wider audience.... but I really liked her idiosyncratic style. Gucci is supposed to make you look good, you know? It's a lot harder to rock clashing bits from a 80s yard sale and still look fly. Her lack of self-consciousness and unpolished, unmanaged way of shooting her mouth off. I'd just hate to see that change.
I don't think at age 27, or 28, that can change just by showing a little leg. It's a glamorous photo shoot - let her have her fun!
Umair, the scene in which david hemmings shoots Veruska? (the super tall, skinny model who was doublejointed or something cuz she moved like she had no bones?) ... This GQ issue carries the pic of Bailey shooting Verushka that inspired not just that scene but the whole movie.
Kundera's a tricky one when it comes to anything erotic though...he finds the ridiculous and absurd all too easily and suddenly it's not erotic...just sort of funny/pathetic. But i'm thinking of "The Book of Laughter of Forgetting." Maybe you're off on another track?
glorious complication? minor irony? thoroughly modern militant?
I think the writer's being sarcastic, the final line is a reference to Thoroughly Modern Millie, which essentially means he/she thinks MIA is an "adorable" spoof of herself and her politics.
But, yes, they're going for the exotic on this one. Notice how the lighting-angle casts her in enigmatic two-tone. Most photographers would acknowledge that is intentional and most colonial minds would find that compelling (light skin for the mind, dark skin for body)...
I don't know, I think she got played on this one and if I were her, I wouldn't be happy about it.
I hate the pale pink lipstick that all the blonde girls in seventh grade wore. that's not a shade meant for brown girls.
I like it (esp with the smoky eyes). I HATE when I go make-up counters and I'm pushed towards the same old tired 2 shades of brown lipstick. Enuff already! We all look like half-dead aunties in that ghastly brown
P.S. To add to the litany of MIA hearings - I clocked her twice on Entourage this season (or has that been discussed ad nauseum already?)
Actually it's the sequence a little after that one, where these two teen girls show up at his studio, and he'd earlier not been giving them the time of day, and one thing leads to another and he makes a move on one of them, she tries to fob him off by saying he should go for her friend, one thing leads to another and there's this madcap chase around his studio (punctuated by frenetic giggling and screams) that ends up with the two girls trying to get the photographer's clothes off-- the sequence ends with an implied menage-a-trois...I think the scene is brilliant because it highlights the narcissism and exploitation (of the photigrapher, but to a lesser extent of the two wannabes too), while at the same time giving rein to a playfully erotic space/moment (indeed one that is perhaps inextricable from the narcissism and exploitation)...
As for Kundera, I guess I was thinking of "Immortality" and "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," but I totally see what you mean, in that I think the later Kundera has, loath though I am to admit it, lost it. (The sex scene by the poolside at a party in "Slowness" must rank as one of the more "ridiculous and absurd...sort of ...pathetic") that I can recall...but I like to think the earlier Kundera wrote about "the erotic" with a sort of wise sexiness...
"...highlights the narcissism and exploitation (of the photographer, but to a lesser extent of the two wannabes too)..."
I meant exploutation BY the photographer, and to a lesser extent by the two wannabes...
Dogday: yes, I got the Broadway musical reference, and yes, I think she got played as well.
I'm all for snark, but it's pretty clear that the writer couldn't care less about her. Especially since the other musicians are treated with thoughtfulness and respect. There's also something deeply unsettling about the fact that her Brit passport is mentioned right after the sentence - "world music used to mean music from a place you need shots to visit.
It's a funny, grabby first line...but it needs another sentence, somewhere, to balance out its inherent sneering condescension. That never comes. She's not part of this self-referential club, and the writer doesn't do anything to alleviate impressions of tokenism. Dizzee Rascal, the only other non-rocker, (bending the definition to include Belle&Sebastian and Brian Eno) gets a tiny picture, but his write-up isn't bad....
i like pale lips with a smoky eye, too. who doesn't? christina aguilera? bah. still, that exact shade of pink does nothing for me. it looks like chalk.
believe me, i'm with you, i don't wear brown lipstick. ever. it's either red or porno lipgloss for me.
re: counters. there's a reason why i shop at sephora, where i can grab and go without being molested by the clown-vultures. i know what i like, thanks, and "corpse" ain't it.
Gucci dress eh, so much for all that anti-establishment rage. When her website splash image was edited to include the more appeasing Sri Lankan flag than Tigers and guns, I had a feeling it was all going to hell. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
Anna I am calling you out on this. I seem to remember that on our Friendster profile there is a picture of you wearing pink eyeshadow that was taken in South Park, CO.
Gucci! Perish the thought, even though it's a spread for GQ.
Pray tell, what "anti-establishment", rage-expressing outfit would have been appropriate in your opinion?
Why, her usual 80s yard sale ones of course with the female militants, tigers, palmyrah trees, guns and other bastardized exotic iconography! Now, that would be making a statement to the GQ readership but no they said jump, she did.
oh, abhi. sigh. THIS is why we divorced. your rugged, adventurous lifestyle and passion for science leave you with no patience for learning about the difference between eye and lip makeup. i tried. i went everywhere with you. i learned about your world. but you...you never grokked mine.
even though i can jump in and out of jeeps in 4" stilettos, if you can't tell the difference between the lip and eye crap i'm applying in the mirror i had to install myself on the passenger-side visor, it's not enough my love...why, oh why did you have to remind me of what...was lost.
/bites fist, while choking on tears
She made a lot of those clothes herself. Generally speaking, when someone is in a fashion mag, it's so they can model the creations of OTHER designers, right?
damn. she fine.
i'm glad there are women reading this blog who are alright with women reveling in their beauty in a public way.
i don't we should write MIA off as having gone "mainstream" so quickly. i plan to let her music do her talking...
Generally speaking, the sky is blue, women bear children and sepiamutiny rocks. Generally speaking of course. But why do we fight CR, why? I forgive MIA, we all have our moments of minority angst but will I forget? No, not so much.
what's the "A+" schtick ?
Are we that surprised to see an attractive black woman appropriately dressed (I say, she scrubs up well!) being served up for the delectation of the Gentlemens Quarterly audience? It happens occasionally, the gentle reader 'knocks one out' over a dark, dangerous and possibly treacherous girl (thank goodness for glossy pages). It's only fashion, music and business; it ain't going to change the world!
MIA as a L'Oreal or Revlon girl is coming up next. Or maybe we'll see her in a Gap ad doing an acoustic version of 'Galang.'
That would not rock.
SOLD OUT, hey its 2005, i'm not going to hold it against her and no one really should, because 95% of struggling artists would sell out if someone was willing to make them famous. The mighty mos says it well
"MTV, is runnin this rap shit
Viacom is runnin this rap shit
AOL and Time Warner runnin this rap shit
We poke out our asses for a chance to cash in
Cocaine, is runnin this rap shit"
I don't particularly like MIA that much, although i'm glad she's getting some press. We need someone else reppin' desi who doesn't need to be one of the most beautiful women on the plantet before she gets any credit, not to dogg on aishwarya, she's gorgeous, but shit why the fuck do i have to look like a ken doll before i can become famous to all these yuppie white folk.
cicatrix, I just want to be a wisea$$ and point out that MIA thinks Gomez is underrated. ;)
Brimful!!! I reeaaally hoped no one would bust me for that!
(good catch :D)
dogday, great observation.
interesting point
if you go by what debeviour said, wouldn't you say that the original other is woman? and so from that point of view women of color have it "double bad"
nice name
apology to anyone who thinks this is harsh.
the name Lord Kitchener should be known by desis...
Commissioned in the Royal Engineers, in 1886 (Lord) Kitchener was appointed governor of the British Red Sea territories and subsequently became commander in chief of the Egyptian army in 1892. In 1898 he crushed the separatist Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi in the Battle of Omdurman and then occupied the nearby city of Khartoum, where his success saw him ennobled in 1898.
In 1900 he became commander in chief of the Boer War, where he fought the guerrillas by burning farms and herding women and children into disease-ridden concentration camps. These ruthless measures helped weaken resistance and bring British victory.
On returning to England in 1902 he was created Viscount Kitchener and was appointed commander in chief in India.
Whoa, this lighting as colonial compelling native stuff is reading way too much into it. I've got a fair bit of experience with photoshoots involving brown subjects.
GQ are a high quality publication, so a typical shoot for them will a multiple light set up with, just guessing from the picture, a key soft, fill, hair/highlight and back. I don't then they used a kicker.
The key is always concentrated on the face, so it naturally looks lighter - as you can see MIA's arms and sternum are lighter than her legs as well. And don't forget makeup. Whilst it's not uncommon for makeup to applied all over the body in shoots, it's unusual. Shoot makeup is heavy stuff and it naturally lightens the skin.
I find it counterproductive to look for 'colonial' slurs where they don't exist. But if you're convinced, hey it's your opinion.
Yeah Dizzee was there! I touted MIA as the female Dizzee last year (so did a lot of other people), but he's gone quiet as of late. If you want to hear a CORKER of a track, get Lucky Star by Basement Jaxx feat. Dizzee Rascal and a rather foxy Indian girl I forget the name of. Great tune.
This is exactly on the mark. I have exp with this as well, brown or white, the results are similar.
whoops. *then = think.
You a photographer Ang? I'm glad you agree cos portraits are not my strong point.
Yes and no. Without going too much into my private life details over this very popular blog, I'm in marketing, but I regularly work very closely with art direction for photographers over the years. Being artistic, I naturally fell into it myself and learned over the years. Love, love, love photography, and I love this sultry photo of MIA.
hell yes!
its just something people might like to know, who Lord Kichener was...nothing to do with MIA's skin color
although i do think there's something to looking at the inter-sectiob of beauty/color/race/the other/the female body/colonialism
Bah, M.I.A. was on Live 105.3 this evening as one of Madden's Obsessions (he was plugging for Bucky Done Gone as a good stadium song, better than what they usually play at Giants Games) and I was like, d'oh, missed my chance to buy the CD before it was totally mainstream.
Anna, those wedding photos are awesome. I demand a 12th year anniversary rematch? I bet you could sell tickets.
anyone interested in colonialism, color, and the body should read about mestizos in South America
I find it counterproductive to look for 'colonial' slurs where they don't exist. But if you're convinced, hey it's your opinion.
I agree with the technical aspects of what you're saying, Bong Breaker, but if you think the photographer and photo-editor didn't notice the two-tone and didn't intend for you to pay equal attention to detail in the upper and lower halves of the shot... No disrespect to you or Ang and your respective backgrounds, but pick up a Maxim or Stuff and compare its women of color shoots to this GQ and you'll see a similarity that you won't find in any of the fashion magazines, from Vogue to YM... The two-tone is an enduring archetype of colonial portraiture, which is tied to colonial views of sexuality, which I assume has some place in a discussion about a cheesecake-shot of MIA and a cheeky article titled "British Rule."
Cicatrix: I'm with you, the writers and editors at GQ are getting a kick out of this one; I think MIA gets more out of having her music in a car-commercial.
interesting on the subject....read about "la pintura de castas"
very interesting ideas
yep.
Thanks for the mestizo tip, though..
you guys remember sir mix-a-lot? "i like big butts" -- the timeless classic? well, if you recall, the song characterizes the the ideal of female beauty as "an LA face with an Oakland booty."
which basically implies light-skindedness and "good hair" up north and stereotypically ghetto characteristics in the lower reaches, which would include darker skin.
societal norms subtly or not-so-subtly demand of women of color that they be at once presentable in the mainstream (white) public sphere, and exotic, authentic, dangerous, objectifiable, in the private sphere.
these norms are deeply woven in with coloniality, and as the example shows, have been internalized to a considerable level within communities of color. because the male gaze is in the house in either case.
when i look at the picture of maya, that's what i see. i'm not surprised that we see this kind of presentation in a white, mainstream commercial publication like GQ; frankly, i'd be more surprised if we didn't.
i appreciate the technical photo knowledge dropped by ang and bb. points surely well taken. but even those technical norms come from somewhere.
peace
Maybe I'm simplistic, but is it possible MIA's face is lighter than the rest of her because (1) it's an aesthetic thing -- the viewer's eye is naturally drawn to someone's face in a photo so the lighting will emphasize that feature, and (2) she's wearing sheer black stockings so by contrast the rest of her looks lighter skinned?
All this postcolonial cultural analysis is too heavy for me at 9:17 in the morning. Getting more coffee now.
Hi guys,
Firstly, I'm really happy to see a couple of guys (guys, right?) looking out for a woman of colours interests. That's great and shows rare sensitivity. However, I personally believe it was an aesthetic choice. Maya's features are gorgeous, but they do need highlting to bring them out. I'm glad that they didn't lighten her all over, because then she might pass as white (or at least olive hued). This same technique is done with caucasians as well, particularly if their features are as strong (un-flat) as Maya's. I've been intriqued by your comments, though, and I tested my theory in a fashion magazines, with guess what? > mostly white people, and it is a valid one. I don't doubt that postcolonial portraiture existed, I just feel that it has nothing to do with this particular photograph.
I also think she is wearing black stockings.... which caucasians also often wear with short evening dresses.
If you feel she has been duped, that's your opinion, but I don't think an adequate argument has yet been made to convince me that she's been taken advantage of. There are other cases, where I feel an artist no longer looks his/her ethnic background or even like themselves at all, and I'm far more offended by that attempt. Your postcolonial theories are definitely worth looking into - I know I'll look into it to further my knowledge.
However, I will not attempt to analyze or compare to the song "Big Butts"!!! I think Sir-Mix-a-Lot was just trying to say he likes african american women period... sheesh. Believe me you, I am not enrolling in Sir-Mix-A-Lot Theory 101 anytime soon!!!
ang, thanks for the nice words. let me clarify one thing. i'm not for a second suggesting that she's been duped -- or even "taken advantage of." at a transactional level -- consenting to the photo shoot (maybe even soliciting it, through an agent?), participating in it, (perhaps) reviewing the results, etc -- i fully assume that maya knew what she was doing. it's part of the game -- she's trying to get ahead as an artist and that is part of how it's done. for all i know, she may be well-read in colonial theory... or maybe she vetoed some other, more obviously exploitative shot... or who knows. we weren't there, we're just speculating, and i prefer to assume free will and take things at face value, unless proven otherwise.
where the colonial stuff comes in is more at the level of consumption -- our (readers, viewers) consumption of the visual product -- and the factors that went into its production as an item to be consumed.
i think it's simply unrealistic to expect that a photo shoot of a young, female artist of color (such as maya) by an established mainstream white commercial publication deeply woven into capitalist consumer society (such as GQ) be 100% free of "othering" through the operation of the male and colonial gaze. it's simply built in, more often in subtle ways than in overt ones. just to what extent, and through what aspects (the photo technique? the outfit? the whatever...) is something folks can debate. but believe me, it's there.
and i'm not saying it shouldn't be. the world is as it is, and looking back with shouldas and couldas is never particularly productive. we gotta look forward, not back.
also, instruments of power such as the "gaze" can sometimes be subverted, even reversed. (sometimes.) the game of representation continues, shifting even as we write.
the way forward i think is through (a) awareness (as opposed to both blind consent and knee-jerk opposition), and (b) self-determination (and self-representation)-- by making our own media. which is exactly what you and i are doing right here, thanks to the initiative of the mutineers.
onward!
peace
Speaking of which, that Tina Sugandh photo spread in Stuff was pretty exploitative, in comparison.
MIA probably has a lot more control over how she is represented in the media than a relatively unknown newcomer like Tina. It comes down to power -- MIA's moving CD units and selling out live shows which (ideally) gives her some clout. And she probably has a good manager who has some influence over her public image.
More than that, though, is that part of MIA's continued success will be to keep her image an personality out there in the public eye, and the more complex and unpredictable that image is, the more the public will be intrigued. It's another page from Madonna's playbook, y'all.
"lighting-angle casts her in enigmatic two-tone"
"arms and sternum are lighter than her legs"
"don't forget makeup"
"multiple light set up with ... a key soft, fill, hair/highlight and back"
all this fashion-related trepidation; I may consider an alternative gift from the Glamour Shots gift certificate I got for my friend's b-day..
nice Raju. I underestimated the curiosity of the mutineers. After looking at the pic a few more times, and slowly getting beyond her "hotness", I am inclined to agree with you.
I find it a little disturbing that I sort of reflexively dismissed that.
i didn't dismiss your comment; your nick reminded me of lord kitchener but that qoute above was not directed to you in anyway. don't worry
i'd love to explore possible connections between mia and madonna. i'm not sure what to think of madonna after all these years
ps lord kitchener i misunderstood your comment above
african colonialism proper was a late-commer, only occuring in the late 1800's, and thats quite interesting
before that time colonialism was centered in the americas and asia
Columbus's voyage was to find Japan and not India, so i have heard. the Spanish wanted to get to Japan after hearning about East Asia from traders from the Near East silk road. many colonial affairs in asia were designed to have access to advanced civilizations that were not the source of raw materials, but products and services
Indian colonialism may have been more frankly racist only after the 1857 mutiny
the spanish themselves only started voyaging abroad as the Moors left spain in 1492. the first settlements were small
Much of South Americas population comes not from colonial times, but from immigration from Europe and the Near East after indepence
it could be that the most virulent color-based racism that we concieve of as white-black is much more recent then might be assumed, and that the dialectic between colonizer and colonized was not for a long time concieved in the same way as we assume
the particular form of racism we think of as "colonial" might be a late-comer, occurring in the late 1800's. by that reasoning, it could be we are not really "post-colonial" at all, but still within an inter-play of ideas that are still on-going, and not settled
who knows?
Lighting or Colonialism?
The following photos have darker hands feet, and lighter faces....
1. Dark hands
2. Dark hands and legs
3. Another example.
4. And yet another.
In all of the above examples, hands and legs are clearly darker, darkening as you go further down. I'd like to see what your verdict is for each or all of these photographs.
personally there is no way i'd like to get into a discussion on that. its just set up for arguement and i wonder if there is any way to make a point about it
its a really hard topic to talk about. for one thing, we have to gather information and then we'd have to be committed to wanting to see it if its there
not to anyone in particular, but there's at times a common reticence to look at these types of issues and there's an almost reflexive, "you're taking this way too seriously its just X"
on one level, its also harder to know how these images are viewed by people for whom desi skin is not a given, who don't see MIA and have her remind them of people the regard as "essential" and not "other"
The photos were selected, b/c I honestly would like to see if there is something else behind them... NOT to argue. What do you think Raju? I'm honestly curious. There are alot of photos where her hands and legs are darker. Is there a reason for it?
Or do you guys see the GQ photo as different because of the sexy dress or the context of the magazine?
mmm...I don't really have an issue with her face being lighter...or the dress, really. Just sad to see her lose some of her more idiocycratic elements as she goes mainstream. It's inevitable, and I suppose it's better that she move to a wider arena than stay stuck in World-music ghetto. Especially since I've already ranted about how 'mainstream' music mags STILL talks about bands that were popular THIRTY FIVE years ago.
I mean, sure the Beatles were genius. The Stones were sexy. They were inspirational to so many, blah blah...but MOVE ON, you know? There's a wider world out there, with a zillion other groups. And I'm gonna love MIA forever for shoving that world into people's faces and getting them to dance to it, yet.
So my gripe with GQ isn't so much the photo- it's a fashion spread, they're supposed to be clothes-horses for designers, whatever. My problem is that clueless, dismissive write-up. To describe SL's problems and MIA's difficult childhood as a 'glorious complication' is such a case of slumming it that I've half a mind to throw a brick through Conde Naste's windows with a little message on it about "minor ironies".
Yeah, I had a problem with the writing too, but now I'm curious about the photograph.
"being committed to seeing it's there" and "deciding you'e way to serious it's just x"
are two sides of the same coin, and I don't want to be on either side. I can't just decide to be committed to see it, and I won't say you're being too serious, either. Both are too stubborn. If this is a problem, I want to know about it.
this thread is getting weirder and weirder
:-))
thanks ang - very funny
Ang: The four photos you put up show MIA in various poses or "states," but none of them are meant to specifically draw attention to sex vis-a-vis her body. This GQ photo, however, is a full-body shot, barefoot, with thighs aimed straight at the viewer and, as Cicatrix mentioned, a "crotch-shot."
Honestly, I think the photographer just thought it looked good, interesting and "sexy." But, as Siddhartha points out, the aesthetic is common, generational and grounded in racial imagery and it's not something limited just to "white" magazines or media, (although it sounds weird, the Sir Mixalot example works quite well here; Hype Williams/Kanye West "Golddigger" video uses similar lighting-effects).
Whatever the case, even if the picture is just a picture and a spade is just a spade, I thought the whole spread was tacky. The Gucci dress didn't seem to have any connection to her, it was weird...
On a sidenote, my unkle looked at this picture of MIA, listened to my rant about her legs and then, without missing a beat, said "She spends too much time in the sun," as though MIA's legs went tanning while her head was in the clouds.
Anyhow, I'm nearing hysteria, so, I'll let it go...
Just saw her show last night in Chicago. It was pretty good. Turn out was kind of low, but that's to be expected. Some comments from MIA(mostly paraphrased):
"I met some from Nairobi who told me that I was number 1 in Nairobi".
"Don't believe everything that you read about me. I don't want to be a leader, just an agitator".
Fair enough. Thanks.
Ang, i think those other pictures are almost way different
btw i saw the GQ cover and MIA is the only one whose given such a pose. all the other artists, white dudes, are presented alot more normally (in my opinion)
interestingly on a page or two before, is a picture of Cameron Diaz, who is also treated as a sex object in the picture
i dislike men's mags because its all about objectifying women and making guys look cool
VJ dude: In the video, there is a lot of militant imagery. I was just wondering if there was a specific cause you were fighting for?
M.I.A: Aaah...aaah...well...aah...
http://www.mtv.com/music/video/index.jhtml?_lpvid=49538