The good: The Independent did an "Africa" issue on 21 September where half the revenues were donated to fight AIDS in Africa. The curious: they put a blackened Kate Moss on the cover and included a free black Kate Moss poster. This is a thornier moral question than last week's about Ashton Kutcher. Is The Independent right to use Kate Moss in order to sell more issues, to generate more revenue, resulting in more money to fight AIDS - even though they've used her in a very peculiar fashion, instead of using either an African model (or perhaps even someone who was not a model in the first place) or a cover celebrity who is, er, genuinely dark skinned? Crass for cash (for a good cause) or just plain wrong? Or is there a deep artistic statement here that I, despite spending a lifetime in art criticism, just ain't getting? Post your Yay or Nay in comments. [GT]
Sign up for the (Red) campaign and save lives at The Independent [via Sepia Mutiny]
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
I get that paper and was intrigued...did not realise it was Kate Moss til I read inside...
The main point they made was that if Kate Moss was from Africa she would x times more likely to die of Aids and so on...very powerful.
Nothing morally dubious about it in my estimation...great thought-provoking device
Namaste
Al
On a purely asethetic POV, I think Kate Moss looks good black.
And I agree with Al. I wonder if it would have provoked the same amount of comment if someone like Alex Wek had been on the cover?
Aha, that's very interesting and _does_ make the use of Kate Moss appropriate as an eye-catcher. The article on Sepia Mutiny was unilaterally disparaging so I was very curious to see if there was actually a positive explanation for it. Thanks!
(And, I think, puts it in the "crass for cash (for a good cause)" category.)