I rarely see black children with dark complexions and prominent black (negroid) features in national adverting campaigns, except possibly in pleas for aid to distressed countries. Most of the “black” kids pictured in ad campaigns are usually very light complexioned at best. I see Hispanic, Asian, white and every iteration in between, but few if any truly dark black children?
Is this racism or practical advertising? Why no dark black children in ads? Do even black people prefer to see light complexioned representations? Are dark black skin tones difficult to deal with in color printing? Is it racism or something else?
I’m not sure about tyhis in particular, but it brought to mind two billboards for Kentucky Fried Chicken that used to be in Times Square, New York City. The first one depicted a girl eating (what else?) KFC. The thing is, she was masterfuklly drawn so that she was racially ambiguous – she could be a light-skinned black girl, or a well-tanned white girl (or one in subdued lighting). I stared at that billboard for a long time, admiring the way they pulled that off. It was replaced, years later, by the second billboard I referred to, which had an adult woman eating KFC. She was equally racially ambiguous.
The good thing about this, from the advertiser’s point of view, is that either race could project themselves or someone they knew into that ad. I’m sure if they could’ve made the face manage to look asaian without pushing, they would’ve done that, too.
So my vote goes for “most racially ambiguous face” on the basis of widest acceptance, not deliberate , intended racism. Appeal to as broad a base as possible without saying or clearly identifying what you are in order to get the maximum return.
Take a look around an average U.S. city. You’ll find very few really, really dark Black people – most African Americans have considerably lighter skin than people from Africa.
I personally see advertisers striving for “racial amiguity” to be pandering to a racist ideal. I get the message that they’re saying " Yeah, we’ll be politically correct and throw some african-americans, asians, hispanics, and a kid in a wheelchair onto a billboard and make everyone happy" “Oh and make sure they’re racially ambiguous…we don’t want them toooo black, toooo hispanic, toooo asian, and christ, make sure the kid in the wheelchair looks somewhat ‘normal.’”
I find this form of subdued racism more despicable than the in-your-face variety.
But these ads rarely use even “medium” skinned people. The African-Americans used are so light that, like the OP said, they could seem like a very tanned caucasians.
I do think there’s some racism involved, but not necessarily overt or intentional. Admakers try to find the most attractive faces, and most people prefer lighter skin and “white” features over dark skin and the more soft, generous features of African faces. Their target demographics are people who have disposable income, and whites tend to have more affluence than blacks, so they try chose faces which will appeal to those who will be buying the products.
There has been more of an effort in the last twenty years to show other races in ads. Up 'till about the 1950s, just about the only African-Americans you see in ads are in the role of servant-- the porter bringing a drink to the white folks, or a maid chosing which product will best clean her white employer’s home.
I actually did some research into this subject a couple of years back. During WWII, the only propaganda poster I could find featuring a black person was one of Joe Lewis, who had enlisted. All of the posters apealling to emotion, like this one, almost invariably showed cute blond white kids.
Have you looked at ads aimed at blacks? (I don’t know if you’re black) But I bet ads aimed specifically at black people in ‘black’ publications, have dark skinned blacks. Plus that Bennington ads have people of every description.
I used to work as a portrait photographer and, just from a completely practical standpoint, very dark skin can be very tricky to photograph. Without just the right lighting and technique you end up with a dark blob with little white specks for eyes. Of course, advertisers have access to skilled photographers so this surely can’t be the only reason, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that it was on the list.
They are darker than the black people used for general consumptions (on average) but you don’t see really black people with really big noses and really big lips. Because that’s not pretty. Not even to black people.
Every one of my black friends thinks Wesley Snipes is ugly because he’s too dark (the fools!) and think JZ is ugly because of his jabooba lips and walk-in nostrils.
Of couse, everyone’s personal taste varies.
Oh I agree, totally. :rolleyes: The beautiful thing about it is that you can scream “RACISM” without having to prove that there is any, you know, actual racism.
There often is a typical black look. So called Bantu features of people of West African descent are everywhere throughout Africa, Europe, the Americas and the Pacific Rim due to the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Even with racial intermixing these features are plain. This is changing somewhat due to East African immigration since the fifties.
Would I be racist describing the people descended of the British Isles as pretty typical white folks?
I might be mistaken, that doesn’t mean I’m racist.
While I appreciate the cite, it really doesn’t say anything about the degree of pigmentation, which is at the heart of the OP.
I could have shot my big fat mouth off and said something about “conventional” standards of attractiveness, or any other kind of blather I’m capable of. Instead, I tried to stay fairly close to the facts, which are: because a large number of African-Americans have some degree of mixed heritage, they aren’t as dark-skinned as someone of recent African (unmixed) heritage. My conjecture is that the art directors of these ads are looking at a pool of lighter skinned models and selecting for a pool of lighter-skinned readers/viewers.
Huh? I’m talking about racism (or skin color discrimination if that’s what you want to call it) masquerading behind the veil of political correctness. As I said above, it’s how I personally view some of these ads. If you see them differently then good for you.
Even E. Indian people find lighter-skinned E. Indian people more attractive. My ex-boyfriend’s mother loathed me, but even she had to admit grumblingly “Well, at least she’s fair-skinned.”
From a practical standpoint, as a D.P. (Director of Photography), I can tell you that very dark skin is tricky to light. Clothing and background contrast ratios can be major issues when it comes to optimal exposure.
Same thing with people in the Philippines. It is more desireable to be fairer-skinned. When I went to the Philippines, there were entire cosmetic lines devoted to “skin-whitening cream”. All the actors and actresses have extremely fair skin, with white make-up on top of that. From talking to friends, this is also true in Brazil and Tonga.
Back to blacks, many popular female models like Halle Barry, Tyra Banks, and Beyonce are fair-skinned.
I was watching the movie “Guess Who” and they picked a light skinned black girl as the female lead. The sister, however, was rather dark. I wonder if they thought it was less risque to have Ashton go out with a lighter girl?
