Racial ambiguity and the hipster aesthetic
CVK
(Thanks to Anna for this!) The New York Times Magazine just did a long profile on American Apparel and its founder, Dov Charney. Now, we’ve been harping on about this company for a long time. Back in February of last year, guest contributor and Like Minded People founder Jamie Tibbetts pointed out how AA was using mixed models and quite explicitly spelling out their mixedness by listing out their ethnicities (e.g., “Meet Carrie, Chinese/British/Canadian”). And last July, we told you about the sexual harassment suit facing Charney.
The NYT Magazine article also references Charney’s predeliction for using mixed models, but focuses mainly on the hipster aspect of it, not really exploring in any depth why he’s so obsessed with mixed people in particular:
Before the ballyhooed Dove soap campaign, Charney embraced the notion of “real” advertising, photographing young ethnic and mixed-race men and women with asymmetrical features, imperfect bodies, blemished skin and visible sweat stains on the clothes they are modeling — the kind of artsy, latter-day-bohemian, indie-culture-affiliated young adults who live and shop in the neighborhoods where American Apparel stores are located.
I wrote a few weeks back about the implied connection we often see between being mixed and being futuristic. It’s interesting that Charney seems to have a similar spin on mixedness. In this case, he clearly associates racial ambiguity with a hipster aesthetic.
Anyway, I thought this part was hilarious. Ever since he got sued for sexual harrassment, he’s making every single new employee sign an agreement that says this:
“American Apparel is in the business of designing and manufacturing sexually charged T-shirts and intimate apparel, and uses sexually charged visual and oral communications in its marketing and sales activities. Employees working in the design, sales, marketing and other creative areas of the company will come into contact with sexually charged language and visual images. This is a part of the job for employees working in these areas.”
In other words, you have to agree to being sexually harrassed in order to work at American Apparel.
mtevc wrote:
What a contract! I use to draft contractual language, and anyone who signs that is an idiot. Besides, after a fun day in NYC, I found myself (and my two young daughters) staring up at the propped up as$ of a young, young, young woman on a monstrous billboard…all for American Apparel…and the young woman pictured (meant to look pre-teen) had on a skimpy tee and striped panties and was licking a lollipop…i am no prude, by any means, but the implications of this billboard offended me…all of a sudden, i wanted to become a graffiti artist, and paint some clothes on the child-model…
Posted 24 Apr 2006 at 8:06 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
As obnoxious as that statement is, the irony is that it WOULD NOT EXCUSE the behavior the CEO is accused of - giving sexual items to workers, hitting on them, being IN HIS UNDERWEAR in meetings, etc.
What is does, however, is make workers THINK that the bad behavior is covered. The only good advice my idiot-savant lawyer uncle ever gave me is that you can never really sign away your rights to sue.
Posted 24 Apr 2006 at 9:23 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:
I agree that among hipsters, it is “hip” to be biracial or racially ambiguous or whatever
Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:
I agree that among hipsters, it is “hip” to be biracial or racially ambiguous or whatever
Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
Marsha wrote:
Oops! The web site posted before I had a chance to finish my thoughts. I agree that among hipsters it is “cool” and “hip” to be mixed. If you look at their lifestyle and what they think is cool, it all revolves around cultural appropriation: yoga classes, Buddha necklaces, henna tatoos, Vishnu babydoll shirts, “ethnic” prints, dreadlocks, bindis on the forehead, etc. I think it might have something to do with upper middle class kids trying to desperately shake off their bland white upbringing and to disassociate from their parents by adding a little “flava” to their style
Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 9:49 am ¶
Merq wrote:
You and I, Marsha? We’re “here.”
Posted 25 Apr 2006 at 10:59 am ¶