General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRussian oligarch's girlfriend sparks MLK day firestorm after posing on naked 'black woman' chair for
fashion blogRussian billionaire Roman Abramovich's partner has sparked an internet firestorm after an online magazine published a photo of her sitting on a chair made to resemble a half-naked black woman - on Martin Luther King Day.
Buro 24/7 used the horrendously offensive image of Dasha Zhukova Monday to illustrate an unrelated interview about the former model's new magazine, Garage. Miroslava Duma, the blog's editor, also posted the insensitive photo on Instagram.
Both were met with an immediate barrage of disgusted comments, and Duma quickly deleted the picture from Instagram and cropped out the chair on Buro 24/7.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543069/Abramovichs-girlfriend-fire-picture-posing-chair-half-naked-black-woman-appears-Russian-fashion-blog-MLK-day.html
Why would anyone come up with that concept for a chair? It's so offensive on every level. It's racist, sexist and not even aesthetically appealing.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)The chair is offensive enough. Why would this girl agree to sit on it?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think she didn't want to do it. Abramovich maybe wanted a pic to share with his very close buddy Putin?
"Hey honey, I found this hilarious chair, you just got to pose on it."
Sick all around.
I couldn't believe that picture when I saw it. Who would even think to make such a chair? And what assholes would buy it?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Major fail.
That's my question too. Who came up with the concept. The guy must be one sick SOB.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)someone is trying to be edgy but comes across as sheer WTF
and don't even get me started on the gal sitting in it
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(not that I want the ANSWER to those questions, mind you).
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And they're really close, like, maybe more than Biden / Obama, as far as politics is concerned.
So it really wouldn't surprise me if this picture was taken as a joke for Putin.
But, I am not saying that's what happened, just speculating.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Jesus Christ on a samovar!
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Closeness shouldn't be a matter of sharing 'jokes' or sick shit like this.
I was just posing the most plausible scenario I can think of because those rich fuckers have to have handlers and PR people, but to go ahead with it? Someone fucked up.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Wasn't saying it did.
As to "handlers" in Russian political and economic life...mostly, what "handlers" do there is to make sure that people there who challenge the figures they are "handling" end up getting shot in the head late at night. They don't do spin doctoring-they choose "the direct route".
Response to joshcryer (Reply #7)
JustAnotherGen This message was self-deleted by its author.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)Well, "Jesus Christ!!!" was more like it. What century are we in again? I'm thinking 17th or early 19th, just before the revolution...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...so they can continue to buy tasteless shit like this.
They need shit like this, that's why we're not allowed to have savings, affordable healthcare, retirement benefits, etc.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)At least the "kidnapped girl" truck bed painting - appalling though it is - has some sort of twisted logic to it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I thought it was a real person at first. It is a life-like doll.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)At first I thought that it was some kind of kinky porn game.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)And because it's about sex, that means liberal principles no longer apply.
See, porn is a magical medium, in which abhorrent and even illegal actions (rape, abuse, torture, racism, misogyny, etc.) are totally ok and even awesome, because ... well, I don't know. Because orgasms, I guess.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Doesn't count as BDSM.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Not to try to be contrary, but, there is a point I offer.
This is not about sex, it is about rich people being arrogant because they know they are rich people.
Where most BDSM has three little words many people ignore "safe, sane, and consensual" meaning that for all the play acting, no one is actually hurt, whereas what billionaires and clergy do is not sane, not safe, and not consensual at all.
I understand that some might want to call this porn, but in reality, it is about the fact that the rich have a culture where they can do whatever they want, and they do not have to take responsibility for anything, because they know they can summon a horde of lawyers and publicists. In other words, this is not about sex, it is about rich people enjoying any shock value because THEY CAN.
The difference between that and porn is the difference between a paintball fight in a strip mall, and a shooting at a high school. In the former, for all the noise and screaming, people walk away and go to a bar afterword. In the latter, the undertakers and emergency rooms get busy.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)they can do what they want, and sneer and laugh in contempt at any of us who dares speak out.
A very close look at the expression on the girlfriend's face suggests she is not happy to be part of this. She may be "well cared for" but I suspect she knows she is a throwaway object as well.
So very charming of them to throw this in our faces on any day. But how much more special on MLK day. Wonder what gift they'll share with us, what insight into their putrid, self-absorbed, self-important, narcissistic, sociopathic minds on future special days of the "little people."
talk about a waste of the air they breathe...
redqueen
(115,096 posts)encroaching into other forms of media. This isn't news. And it's obviously an influence for this picture.
As for the 'safe, sane, and consensual' schtick, it's nice PR, but until the kink scene isn't worse than the so-called 'vanilla' scene, it's just PR, and not exactly honest PR at that.
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)From what I see in this thread every one else (myself included) sees it as misogynistic and oppressive. To each her or his own, I guess.
JI7
(89,187 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)And your agenda is showing.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)And if by my "agenda" you mean calling out misogynist bullshit, especially when the.noxious shit is deemed acceptable because simply it's porny OR ACTUAL PORN then I'm not exactly hiding it.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Re-read what you posted. No reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than you were calling it porn. However, based on your posting history, hell will freeze over before you admit it was ambigious and that you did not mean to refer to it as porn.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Nice try, though.
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)Wow, you're covering a lot of territory today. Good for you.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)There you go overly parsing again, maybe in an attempt to be dismissive.
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)Have a nice day.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)the word 'prejudice'.
I would suggest that you look up the definition, and see if you can figure out why your overreaction is ignorant, but since I don't expect you'd bother, allow me: The prejudice, in this case, is seeing my username on a post and assuming that I'm calling the chair porn, just because I say the word 'porny', based on my anti-porn stance.
I can object to porn, and think this 'art' is porny, without defining the 'art' as porn. And this is exactly what happened. But it's easier to kneejerk than read, so...
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)No, You actually did call it porn based on you own words. You can deny it after the fact all you want, but it's there in black and white.
And because it's about sex, that means liberal principles no longer apply.
See, porn is a magical medium, in which abhorrent and even illegal actions (rape, abuse, torture, racism, misogyny, etc.) are totally ok and even awesome, because ... well, I don't know. Because orgasms, I guess.
So let's deconstruct what you said:
#1 "it's porny". So far so good, you're entitled to view it that way. Would have been fine if you had stopped there, but...
#2 "it's about sex". Hmm. Art, sex, "porny", sure seems like your infer it's "porn". I don't know, shall we look a little further? OK, let's...
#3 "See, porn is a magical medium". Wait a minute, did you just change the subject? Are we now discussing "Debbie Does Dallas"? No, you never made that distinction, this post was entirely about the piece of art depicted in the OP and never veered from it.
So here's my issue with your post. You used it to rant about porn (which you're entitled to do by the way), but then you throw in the dig about "liberal principles no longer apply". Now based on your body of work here on DU, my "kneejerk" reaction is not that you are referring to your own liberal principles, but those of your fellow DU members who do not feel as you do regarding porn. The funny thing is, nobody defended this piece in this thread for what it is. You choose to make it about porn and use that to backhandedly chastise people who disagree with your position.
So there you have it. Take it FWIW. Or not.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)How about you hop down off that cross?
Ehh, actually, no. Allow me to demonstrate.
#
It is that way. Call it "erotica-ish" if you like euphemisms, but it is what it is.
No, you inferred I was saying, 'its porn' but I didn't. I didn't imply it was porn, either.
This is where you veered wildly off track. I mentioned porn here in the effort to explain why this chair would be defended if it was presented as porn and not art. As art, it gets dozens of DUers lining up to say that its awful and racist and sexist. If you posted that same image as porn, it might get hidden by a jury, but most DUers would be lining up to defend it.
It's a comparison, see? Between two different things: this 'art', and porn. Cause they're two different things. Is this getting clearer now?
LOL, "rant", nice characterization.
The FACT is, racist, misogynist shit is defended in porn here.
Remeber the rape porn threads? Are you telling me that this CHAIR THAT LOOKS LIKE a woman being bound and sat on as 'art' is somehow more offensive than videos OF ACTUAL WOMEN BEING BRUTALIZED? Why? Because if they consent, that makes it ok to promote rape as something that should be captured on film and sold / shared?
Inanimate objects (such as chairs) can't be humiliated. Yet somehow this image of a chair is more offensive than racist porn, rape porn, etc.
I'm not "chastising" anyone. I'm making an analogy in order to make people think about why certain things are defensible if depicted in porn, but not as furniture/'art'.
If you don't like the point I'm making well good for you. It's not going to stop me.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)and you've made this about about your own agenda which is obviously to be dismissive. You're the one talking about porn, and you're the one chastising. It's a tactic that the same group of you seem to use. If you sieze upon one word and start parsing it down and forcing someone to explain what many others grasped without a problem, then you can insert your "agenda" which is obviously to be dismissive. It's very noticeable.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Pointing out the obvious?
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)Infer what you want from that as to the agenda promoted.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)in an attempt to be dismissive. It's obvious that the object is not "porn", but that it conjures up a depiction of degradation, hence the reference to "porn-y." I got it right away and thought it was an apt description.
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)Jones. The original pieces were white women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Jones_%28sculptor%29
"Jones' exhibition of erotic sculptures, such as the set Chair, Table and Hat Stand (1969), are studies in forniphilia, which turn women into items of human furniture. Much of his work draws on the imagery of rubber fetishism and BDSM."
Porn, erotica - it wasn't a reach.
http://hyperallergic.com/104347/the-art-worlds-casual-racism/
redqueen
(115,096 posts)NATURALLY
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)So this artist pretty much turns women into objects. Well, that would be super edgy and all that, if that hadn't already been going on since, oh, forever.
Didn't mean to yell at you, I'm just getting tired of this shit.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)a rich woman's blog post published on MLK's birthday, it's a EXTREMELY safe bet that most here would be lining up to DEFEND it.
REP
(21,691 posts)I've always found them disturbing, and suspect that's why Kubrick wanted him to design pieces (at no charge) for A Clockwork Orange (he refused; the ones in the movie are knock-offs). The originals are technically better workmanship but just as disturbing. Were they meant to be? I don't think Jones was going for the reaction he gets from me.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)person's body is incorporated into a chair, table, cabinet or other piece of furniture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forniphilia
redqueen
(115,096 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)But what it really means is that it is art. But because there is a woman we can look at in the art it is sexist (if a man looks at).
If nothing else I have learned the art of examining things on DU. So my photo analysis:
1. I have never seen that woman on the floor act as a chair for a man. Therefore, she is practicing benevolent sexism and should be properly scolded for not treating all people equally at all times and keeping proper records of such action.
2. The lady on the floor is wearing high heels which are a sign of male oppression and yet she is being sat upon by a woman. That woman would never normally do this so she was forced into using her body to make money by posing in this manner (also by a man unless the photo agency is run by a willing female cohort - ie, someone who does not agree with all of the principles of one group of feminists).
3. The painting on the wall is of 3 white women sitting on a couch. All the white women are sitting in the photo which means they are not standing up to men and racism. They are powerless because the men of du are all misogynists (ie, hate women). Note also the photo is in black and white, the same color of the two main subjects.
4. The woman sitting has her hair pulled back and tied up - showing she is not free either but a victim of the patriarchy who told her to sit down and being that she is less of a victim than those of color she sits atop someone else and is closer to men (she is almost standing versus the other lady who is all the way on her back - still oppressed daily in all that she does, how she dresses, etc but still less oppressed than the other).
5. The lady sitting has painted nails. She only did that to please men and any man who notices it in the picture is sexist (well, all men are but those who noticed that and mentioned anything like 'they look nice' wants to have sex with her).
6. She is wearing blue jeans. Black and blue to represent the oppressive culture.
7. The mirrors do not reflect her even though she seems to be on level with them, it is all an illusion.
8. The sitting lady's foot is the same level as the chair lady's face meaning she stepped on others to get her leg up the ladder, she worked to secure the vote for the white women but not others. There is a cushion between them because she does not want to feel the pain of someone else as their suffering would just add complications to her own battle to shake off the evil men.
9. The belt on the woman - notice it is not on the sitting lady, she took it off and handed it down because belts are mainly worn by men and are seen as a symbol of oppression. She took off her high heels as well. Her identity is slowing changing as she searches for independence. She wears pants. Her shirt is buttoned up. Hair pulled back to be shorter. She wants to pass as a man, to become one, and anything that was once seen as feminine has now become a symbol of bad. She will become a man in all ways and eventually remove even the nail polish.
10. The black lady is laying on a round carpet of white - these are the oppressed poor and third world people - people the patriarchal religious males see as all white (like everyone in the bible was white in the middle east). She has a cushion between her and the floor (those worst oppressed by only men) because she lives in a country that is not poor. Oppressed as she is she is better off still than others, even many white people - but in the country she is in she is still below the white privileged women who serve (through marriage and porn) the males.
So much more in this photo. Like all photos it is a tale of how bad men are and everything they do is suspect and related to sex and power. The sitting woman probably has the door held open for her while the woman on the floor probably has to carry her bags.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)I couldn't read any more after that... FFS... that post...
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)WTF was that all about? I apologize if it was some kind of joke against sexism and racism that went over my head, but it kinda sounded a little bit defensive to me. Who here said that du men, and all men in general, are bad? From what I've seen here, most male duers are at least somewhat pro-feminism and against racism. Hell, most of my male friends are pro-feminism and anti-racism. Of course, most of my male friends are either 1) gay, 2) black, 3) both or 4) into pagan religions and worship different kinds of gods and goddesses. Although, now that I've said that, maybe I don't know enough regular dudes to judge wether or not men are bad, but I still doubt it.
Hee, I don't think I have many "normal" friends...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)It's like no one was taught by their parents to be decent and consider the feelings of others.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Didn't this girl think that it was a terrible chair and she shouldn't sit on it? I wouldn't blame the parents though, we don't know how they raised her.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)There is a whole lot of tacky, weird stuff there. It is almost like it was decorated for a Russian oligarch...
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"Martin Luther King Day" is really totally irrelevant and acting as though that even matters is just a really stupid sort of US-centric thinking that presumes that a Russian person in Russia is going to know it's MLK day in the USA or care.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Or they just cannot put themselves in other people's shoes. No taste, no common sense, no empathy. But I'm sure someone, somewhere will try to justify it. Sorry, but I ain't buying it, this is just flat-out racist and sexist. They can have all the free speech they want, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Whoever made this was either trying to be as offensive as possible, or they know nothing about black women's history. Probably both.
The only other explanation I can see is that they were trying to make some kind of statement on the treatment of black women, but for some reason I highly doubt that.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)Literally
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"This how we celebrate Oligarch Christmas. High Five!"
(as reported by correspondent Borat Sagdiyev).
freshwest
(53,661 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Revanchist
(1,375 posts)There are clearer pictures of the "milk bar" scene of A Clockwork Orange but most are very NSFW.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Wow!!!
cali
(114,904 posts)and his work may be creepy but it's beautiful and has an amazing organic sense to it.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I've seen some of his work at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. He was a Renaissance man. He excelled in several mediums, including photography. His photography subjects were usually nude women.
I was referring to Cali's link because among all the images there's one the white version of the pic in this article. It predates this version, but I couldn't find anything on that chair (like who designed it).
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Oligarchs, or the far more accurate term parasites, are what they are and do what they do. They always have.
Perhaps, it is the fact that sane people cannot easily put themselves into the sick mindset required to become a complete parasite?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And it applies here because Russia still has many oligarchs though Putin has pretended to crack down on them.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)but art is in the eye of the beholder.
If it's a white woman chair, is it still racist? Or is it just misogynist?
How about a white man chair? Is this the only acceptable chair?
cali
(114,904 posts)yes, a white woman chair is offensive- though I find the work of Carabin creepily beautiful (I'm a sucker for almost anything art nouveau) A white man chair? Historically, although individual white men and even classes of white men have been oppressed (think indentured servitude), white men have, more often than not, been the oppressors.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Always at least one man around here who will defend any hateful piece of filth if it's porny.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Why did you leap to that conclusion?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)calling it 'art' and refusing to call it offensive.
check out that person's posting history and you will see this is not a coincidence. He describes feminists as 'sexists' and here he is playing the "you wouldn't be whining if this was a white man so stop being so politically correct" crapola.
Here's a representative post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4220487
83. Who can't resist Hillary in that pantsuit?!
No wonder Bill is a faithful and chaste husband.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)In actual porn, racism apparently isn't an issue worthy of comment for most.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Cali just posted a link that includes a pic of it. Just as ugly and inappropriate, either way.
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)...that woman's boyfriend is the owner of Chelsea FC -- the George Steinbrenner of world football.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)At a milk bar, I believe it was? (ETA a picture I found of it.)
Only this is worse, because I agree making it a black women is more offensive. The main impression it conveys to me is: 1) how incredibly arrogant these people are, and; 2) their bullyism, because it's picking on a group which typically has less power (black women), and showing off that bullyism, flaunting it.
The chair maker should've used another oligarch as a subject, like Ronny Raygun or Genghis Khan... that would've been artistic.
I'm glad it resulted in a shitstorm, it was deserved.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Appears someone strapped an ugly plexiglass/vinyl cushion on a mannequin.
MineralMan
(146,195 posts)They have no sense of the wrong they do. This woman's blank expression is a demonstration of that.
I'm glad this was publicized before being cleansed from view.
catbyte
(34,178 posts)Hotler
(11,354 posts)warrior1
(12,325 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)Five years ago I took a trip to Latvia and walked through the house (now a shop) that my grandparents built and lived in and were driven out of by Stalin's thugs during World War Two, never to see or return again... to their home, their country or their oldest child.
THAT was obscene.
This is just a stupid and tasteless blow up doll look-a-like, designed to distract the stupid public from the real atrocities on the planet.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She lived her from age 10 until after college. Hard to buy that she did not know about American culture or what her photo would communicate.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I don't know what she was thinking.
mcar
(42,210 posts)Words fail.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Edited, because I've just read this on the other thread.
"Ms Zhukova's publicist blasted the use of the image on MLK day and said her client has a strong record of promoting diversity. She said it was 'regrettable' that the image of the chair by Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard had been used on such a sensitive day by the blog, and pointed out that such a use took the work completely out of context.
Ms Zhukova herself added: 'This photograph, which has been published completely out of context, is of an art work intended specifically as a commentary on gender and racial politics."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024366247#post78
muriel_volestrangler
(101,166 posts)By sitting on it, in normal clothes, in front of a table with mirrors - apparently a dressing table - it makes it look like she owns and uses it. Didn't she realise that whenever the photo was taken? Or is she saying this was from her modelling career, and she was paid by the artist to be the person sitting on it as part of the artwork?
polly7
(20,582 posts)I think the person who posted the picture yesterday is disgusting and insensitive, to say the least. If she sat for this photo in the context she says she did ... I just don't know, I'd like to find some commentary on the picture at the time it was taken.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,166 posts)but, at the same time, OK for her to pose on it for use in another context.
Does she own the artwork? If not, how did she end up being photographed like that sitting on it? How many years ago was the picture taken? How was that photograph intended to be used in a non-offensive way?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Which is why I said I'd like to see commentary about the picture a the time it was done.
I think that if it was taken in any other context but that which she's stated, it's absolutely disgusting in every respect. But, if it was done as a social commentary protesting racial and sexist bigotry ... I see it from another angle.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,166 posts)He's a multi-billionaire who is the high-profile owner one of the top English soccer teams, and is in the news often. She is pretty much unknown in the UK. The only realistic headline would mention him. Without it, it would be "someone in the world is racially insensitive".
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)For example, what is the name of the chair?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,166 posts)I can't find out if Zhukova owns the chair/artwork, when the photo was taken, or for what purpose, let alone if it was named, or if there was a specific woman who posed for it.
But, yes, this is in the news because of the involvement of celebrity. There are far worse instances of racism perpetrated every day on the internet, but by people we haven't heard of.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)At least these privileged idiots made it public. Now the world know.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Then again, Abramovitch is Putin's buddy so he probably doesn't care if his girlfriend sits on black women.
Not great PR after the Terry racism thing.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,166 posts)2naSalit
(86,083 posts)I also wonder at the picture on the wall behind the white female idiot. There are three figures on a sofa-like piece of furniture but what are those three "things" in front of them. I shudder to think that it might be what my imagination has come up with as possibilities given what's in the foreground.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I tried enlarging it but it's too blurry.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bob-and-carol-and-ted-and-alice-1969
Although there are two men here
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)hueymahl
(2,418 posts)Tacky, inappropriate, disgusting, mysogonistic and racist, but still art. And political/social speech. It is art for those reasons only.
bluesbassman
(19,312 posts)One can take away from the piece many things as you pointed out, and as was mentioned in a post upthread, it's artistic value lies in the eye of the beholder.
Who knows what motivated the artist to create it, but each of us can view and see many different things. In a different setting (not this photoshoot) this piece could be praised as a work calling out the misogyny, oppression, and racism encountered by modern black women.
cali
(114,904 posts)saying "it's art" is kind of meaningless.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)It's by British artist Allen Jones. In 1969 he did three female figures: "Hatstand", "Table" and "Chair". Chair is at the Tate Museum in London.
Chair
Table
Hatstand
All three
Russian Socialite Says Posing On Black Woman Bondage Chair Was 'Art'
A Russian socialite who was photographed posing on a chair sculpted to look like a naked black woman is defending the image as art that was "published completely out of context."
Zhukova also denied the photograph was racist, arguing the image was intended to comment on racial politics.
"This photograph, which has been published completely out of context, is of an art work intended specifically as a commentary on gender and racial politics," she said in a statement, as quoted by the Guardian. "I utterly abhor racism, and would like to apologise to anyone who has been offended by this image."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/russian_magazine_apologizes_photograph_black_woman_bondage_chair