Publications
Partners
New work smacks of cultural appropriation, writes Charl Blignaut
We all know by now, dear whites, that blackface is wrong, right? That, in a racist world, a black skin cannot just be taken off and worn as a costume and then hung up again. We know it has to do with power, this casual use of black skin.
But what about cultural appropriation – like a white fashion designer using traditional African attire to inspire their collection? Or white photographers depicting black “subcultures”?
There are many blurry lines here – of agency, respect and commodification. When white artists display black bodies, like in the work of star South African photographer Pieter Hugo, including his latest on Jamaica’s male porn stars and “gully queens”, I am immediately alert. How do they display them?
Since cameras first arrived in Africa, black people have been exoticised and sold as savage, noble or otherwise.
Hugo’s latest work continues this exploitative tradition, but for trendoids.
The photos show ostensibly queer men in a country where it is illegal. Placing a scantily clad porn star in the jungle removes him from society and makes him an exotic creature, the other.
Even worse is doing the same to vilified homeless people (the word “gully” comes from sleeping in gutters) and then profiting from it (the series is done with New York fashion brand Hood By Air).
Like his series on hyena handlers in Nigeria, Hugo displays black bodies as savage fashion, found in the urban jungle, mixed with some or other quasi-social
or anthropological blurb and maybe a quote on how he’s dignifying his subjects, exposing their plight, exploring masculinity.
White masculinity and power is seldom displayed.
Hugo will say he collaborated with his subjects. But who holds the money and the power?
And when the cameras leave, how do these men, suddenly big on the internet, negotiate their safety?
