Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:17 AM Jan 2014

Russian oligarch's girlfriend sparks MLK day firestorm after posing on naked 'black woman' chair for

fashion blog

Russian 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.

120 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russian oligarch's girlfriend sparks MLK day firestorm after posing on naked 'black woman' chair for (Original Post) Beacool Jan 2014 OP
Christ. joshcryer Jan 2014 #1
Exactly!! Beacool Jan 2014 #2
I can't say her motives but the look on her face is tepid. joshcryer Jan 2014 #7
A lot of these fashion people want to be edgy, but this pic crossed the line. Beacool Jan 2014 #9
that was my feeling Skittles Jan 2014 #32
Which raises real questions about what porn sites Putin visits. Ken Burch Jan 2014 #23
Heh, Abramovich literally put Putin into power. joshcryer Jan 2014 #24
I sure as hell HOPE Biden and Obama don't share "jokes" like this. Ken Burch Jan 2014 #25
Whoa now. joshcryer Jan 2014 #27
Of course it shouldn't. Ken Burch Jan 2014 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author JustAnotherGen Jan 2014 #56
The first word out of my mouth. liberalmuse Jan 2014 #18
Too much money. morningfog Jan 2014 #3
And too little common sense. Beacool Jan 2014 #4
The 1% clearly need more money... Barack_America Jan 2014 #54
Not just offensive, but honestly one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen... nomorenomore08 Jan 2014 #5
It's stupid and tasteless, but it was not an actual person being sat on. morningfog Jan 2014 #6
Me too. Beacool Jan 2014 #8
It's racist and sexist, but it's porny. See the strap around her? It's BDSM, so it's ok. redqueen Jan 2014 #10
The mannequin hands are free. joshcryer Jan 2014 #11
It's fucking disgusting. El_Johns Jan 2014 #16
+1 freshwest Jan 2014 #29
Torture and racism. Rememeber what Bashir got fired for? What slaveholders did is okay now? n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #28
actually DonCoquixote Jan 2014 #34
agreed. it's about power. complete power. magical thyme Jan 2014 #45
Did someone call it porn? I didn't. I said it was porny. Porn is increasingly redqueen Jan 2014 #48
Interesting that you see this as porn redqueen. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #42
porn can be many things including illegal like child porn JI7 Jan 2014 #43
I don't "see it as porn". nt redqueen Jan 2014 #49
I see. So wahat was your purpose in describing it as such? n/t bluesbassman Jan 2014 #67
post 48 redqueen Jan 2014 #69
Nice try, but of course you called it porn. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #77
LOL! Quote me. Quote the part where I called it porn. redqueen Jan 2014 #80
It is called the English language joeglow3 Jan 2014 #95
No, it's called an incorrect inference based on prejudice. redqueen Jan 2014 #99
So you have now made the leap to "prejudice"? bluesbassman Jan 2014 #104
"Predudice" is also a term for "bias" R B Garr Jan 2014 #107
Right. Well you can continue believing that if it makes you feel better. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #109
LOL, I knew when I saw a reply to this that it was most likely gonna be an ignorant overreaction to redqueen Jan 2014 #110
You're on a roll. Nice dig. I may be ignorant, but I can read and comprehend. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #113
I said the OVERREACTION was ignorant, not you. redqueen Jan 2014 #114
There you go again. You are parsing a descriptively contrived ending to a word R B Garr Jan 2014 #115
And what agenda is that? R B Garr Jan 2014 #102
It's only obvious to those who want it to be obvious. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #103
What about the other agenda -- overly parsing words and intended meanings R B Garr Jan 2014 #105
See my post #106. I "parsed" nothing. n/t bluesbassman Jan 2014 #108
The artist who created this chair recreated this chair and other pieces originally created by Allen seaglass Jan 2014 #79
*crickets* *crickets* *crickets* *crickets* *crickets* redqueen Jan 2014 #87
Forniphilia, eh? Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #91
What is interesting is that if this same 'art' was presented as erotica, and not redqueen Jan 2014 #92
Here's Jones's original pieces REP Jan 2014 #117
deleted because I already said this. lol n/t seaglass Jan 2014 #93
Learned a new word today - forniphilia - a form of bondage and sexual objectification in which a seaglass Jan 2014 #70
Given that, I'm surprised these threads aren't overrun with the usual defenders. nt redqueen Jan 2014 #72
Well, at least one is here. n/t seaglass Jan 2014 #76
I think that woman is just a willing cohort who deserves a pat on the head The Straight Story Jan 2014 #74
" They are powerless because the men of du are all misogynists (ie, hate women)" redqueen Jan 2014 #89
Lol, I know, right! Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #100
There are so many fucked up attitudes in this world Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2014 #12
I agree. Beacool Jan 2014 #17
I don't know anyone who wouldn't have *run away* if they saw that! n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #30
Is this what the fuck rich people spend their money on? JaneyVee Jan 2014 #13
Not all rich people, just these two idiots. Beacool Jan 2014 #15
A friend of mine has been to this dude's house a lot AngryAmish Jan 2014 #83
An obscenity. An argument for redistribution and tumbrels. Sick people. El_Johns Jan 2014 #14
Russian oligarch's Russian girlfriend posts really questionable photo, full stop. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2014 #19
Some people just have no taste. Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #20
+1 freshwest Jan 2014 #31
^^^ yes. This is the absolute kindest interpretation of the photo possible. ^^^ Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2014 #78
I'm speechless MrScorpio Jan 2014 #21
"MLK Day is two weeks later on Eastern calendar" Ken Burch Jan 2014 #22
What the hell is wrong with people? Are they on drugs? What Bullshit! n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #26
That's disgusting, no doubt but not a new concept. cali Jan 2014 #35
Hadn't heard of him before. This is what it reminded me of Revanchist Jan 2014 #41
There's a white version of that atrocity? Beacool Jan 2014 #63
rupert carabin was a famous art nouveau artist cali Jan 2014 #98
I'm not talking about Carabin's work. Beacool Jan 2014 #112
I'm sorry, this is really quite offensive, but is there something ambiguous about 'Oligarch'? Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #36
Russia is where the term oligarch originates, afaik. joshcryer Jan 2014 #37
I think we can all grant it's a weird chair CFLDem Jan 2014 #38
a black woman chair is more offensive because of history cali Jan 2014 #39
Redqueen's point above has been validated. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #46
Not from what that post said. That person's post did not suggest he found it sexy/porny at all. stevenleser Jan 2014 #50
the person defended something that sexually degrades black women geek tragedy Jan 2014 #58
At least the racism is considered a problem, at least. redqueen Jan 2014 #51
There IS a white version of that chair. Beacool Jan 2014 #64
For those here who are soccer fans... regnaD kciN Jan 2014 #40
I'm shocked! Shocked! redqueen Jan 2014 #53
Reminds me of the scene in "A Clockwork Orange". Waiting For Everyman Jan 2014 #44
It doesn't look very comfortable.. Jesus Malverde Jan 2014 #47
Damn Rich People! MineralMan Jan 2014 #52
Maybe it's "A Major Award" catbyte Jan 2014 #55
Did you see her feet! Must be size 13 and butt ugly. n/t Hotler Jan 2014 #57
sick warrior1 Jan 2014 #59
meh tavernier Jan 2014 #60
Dasha Zhukova spent many years in CA, private schools and UC Santa Barbara Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #61
Yes, she should have known better. Beacool Jan 2014 #75
That is so offensive mcar Jan 2014 #62
Just ....... why? polly7 Jan 2014 #65
What 'context' did she think being photographed in it gave? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #88
It's in the post you replied to. polly7 Jan 2014 #90
I still can't see what the context is that makes it bad to use it to illustrate her muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #94
I don't know. polly7 Jan 2014 #96
Also offensive, defining a woman by who her partner is instead of by her own name. Coyotl Jan 2014 #66
He's famous, she isn't muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #85
So, there is no news here, just celebs to talk about, no real issue or people. Coyotl Jan 2014 #116
Do you mean 'name of the chair', or 'name of the woman who posed for it'? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #119
Wow. I can't even begin to describe the awful stuff in that image cinnabonbon Jan 2014 #68
It is disgusting. n/t seaglass Jan 2014 #71
Stay classy, Chelsea LittleBlue Jan 2014 #73
You can't blame Chelsea football club for what the owner's partner does (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #86
Aside from the disgusting image in the foreground 2naSalit Jan 2014 #81
I know .... what are those things in front? polly7 Jan 2014 #82
Look like mirrors to me. dipsydoodle Jan 2014 #84
It reminds me a bit of the movie Bob & Carol Ted & Alice jakeXT Jan 2014 #120
disgustingly racist Liberal_in_LA Jan 2014 #97
Be disgusted if you want, but it is art hueymahl Jan 2014 #101
Exactly. bluesbassman Jan 2014 #106
so what? does that give it some sort of special dispensation? cali Jan 2014 #111
Here's a pic of the original chair this one was based on. Beacool Jan 2014 #118

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
7. I can't say her motives but the look on her face is tepid.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:25 AM
Jan 2014

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)
9. A lot of these fashion people want to be edgy, but this pic crossed the line.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:28 AM
Jan 2014

Major fail.

That's my question too. Who came up with the concept. The guy must be one sick SOB.

Skittles

(152,967 posts)
32. that was my feeling
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:32 AM
Jan 2014

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)
23. Which raises real questions about what porn sites Putin visits.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:20 AM
Jan 2014

(not that I want the ANSWER to those questions, mind you).

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
24. Heh, Abramovich literally put Putin into power.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:22 AM
Jan 2014

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.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
27. Whoa now.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:27 AM
Jan 2014

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)
33. Of course it shouldn't.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:33 AM
Jan 2014

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)

liberalmuse

(18,670 posts)
18. The first word out of my mouth.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:03 AM
Jan 2014

Well, "Jesus Christ!!!" was more like it. What century are we in again? I'm thinking 17th or early 19th, just before the revolution...

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
54. The 1% clearly need more money...
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:52 AM
Jan 2014

...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)
5. Not just offensive, but honestly one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen...
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:23 AM
Jan 2014

At least the "kidnapped girl" truck bed painting - appalling though it is - has some sort of twisted logic to it.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
6. It's stupid and tasteless, but it was not an actual person being sat on.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:24 AM
Jan 2014

I thought it was a real person at first. It is a life-like doll.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
10. It's racist and sexist, but it's porny. See the strap around her? It's BDSM, so it's ok.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:32 AM
Jan 2014

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.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
34. actually
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:21 AM
Jan 2014

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)
45. agreed. it's about power. complete power.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 08:41 AM
Jan 2014

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)
48. Did someone call it porn? I didn't. I said it was porny. Porn is increasingly
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:41 AM
Jan 2014

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)
42. Interesting that you see this as porn redqueen.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:46 AM
Jan 2014

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.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
80. LOL! Quote me. Quote the part where I called it porn.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jan 2014

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)
95. It is called the English language
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:58 PM
Jan 2014

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.

bluesbassman

(19,312 posts)
104. So you have now made the leap to "prejudice"?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:43 PM
Jan 2014

Wow, you're covering a lot of territory today. Good for you.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
107. "Predudice" is also a term for "bias"
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:59 PM
Jan 2014

There you go overly parsing again, maybe in an attempt to be dismissive.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
110. LOL, I knew when I saw a reply to this that it was most likely gonna be an ignorant overreaction to
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:22 PM
Jan 2014

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)
113. You're on a roll. Nice dig. I may be ignorant, but I can read and comprehend.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:07 PM
Jan 2014

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.

10. It's racist and sexist, but it's porny. See the strap around her? It's BDSM, so it's ok.

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)
114. I said the OVERREACTION was ignorant, not you.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:44 PM
Jan 2014

How about you hop down off that cross?

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.

Ehh, actually, no. Allow me to demonstrate.

#
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...

It is that way. Call it "erotica-ish" if you like euphemisms, but it is what it is.

#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...

No, you inferred I was saying, 'its porn' but I didn't. I didn't imply it was porn, either.

#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.

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?

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

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)
115. There you go again. You are parsing a descriptively contrived ending to a word
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 08:16 PM
Jan 2014

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.

bluesbassman

(19,312 posts)
103. It's only obvious to those who want it to be obvious.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:41 PM
Jan 2014

Infer what you want from that as to the agenda promoted.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
105. What about the other agenda -- overly parsing words and intended meanings
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:53 PM
Jan 2014

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.

seaglass

(8,170 posts)
79. The artist who created this chair recreated this chair and other pieces originally created by Allen
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:47 PM
Jan 2014

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/

Lunacee_2013

(529 posts)
91. Forniphilia, eh?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jan 2014

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)
92. What is interesting is that if this same 'art' was presented as erotica, and not
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:52 PM
Jan 2014

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)
117. Here's Jones's original pieces
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:12 PM
Jan 2014

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)
70. Learned a new word today - forniphilia - a form of bondage and sexual objectification in which a
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:14 PM
Jan 2014

person's body is incorporated into a chair, table, cabinet or other piece of furniture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forniphilia


The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
74. I think that woman is just a willing cohort who deserves a pat on the head
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:20 PM
Jan 2014

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)
89. " They are powerless because the men of du are all misogynists (ie, hate women)"
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:10 PM
Jan 2014


I couldn't read any more after that... FFS... that post...

Lunacee_2013

(529 posts)
100. Lol, I know, right!
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:20 PM
Jan 2014

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)
12. There are so many fucked up attitudes in this world
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:38 AM
Jan 2014

It's like no one was taught by their parents to be decent and consider the feelings of others.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
17. I agree.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:50 AM
Jan 2014

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.

 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
83. A friend of mine has been to this dude's house a lot
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:39 PM
Jan 2014

There is a whole lot of tacky, weird stuff there. It is almost like it was decorated for a Russian oligarch...

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
19. Russian oligarch's Russian girlfriend posts really questionable photo, full stop.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:10 AM
Jan 2014

"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)
20. Some people just have no taste.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:25 AM
Jan 2014

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.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
22. "MLK Day is two weeks later on Eastern calendar"
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:17 AM
Jan 2014


"This how we celebrate Oligarch Christmas. High Five!"

(as reported by correspondent Borat Sagdiyev).

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)
41. Hadn't heard of him before. This is what it reminded me of
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:36 AM
Jan 2014


There are clearer pictures of the "milk bar" scene of A Clockwork Orange but most are very NSFW.
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
98. rupert carabin was a famous art nouveau artist
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:05 PM
Jan 2014

and his work may be creepy but it's beautiful and has an amazing organic sense to it.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
112. I'm not talking about Carabin's work.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:52 PM
Jan 2014

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)
36. I'm sorry, this is really quite offensive, but is there something ambiguous about 'Oligarch'?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:42 AM
Jan 2014

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)
37. Russia is where the term oligarch originates, afaik.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:44 AM
Jan 2014

And it applies here because Russia still has many oligarchs though Putin has pretended to crack down on them.

 

CFLDem

(2,083 posts)
38. I think we can all grant it's a weird chair
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:47 AM
Jan 2014

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)
39. a black woman chair is more offensive because of history
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:54 AM
Jan 2014

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)
46. Redqueen's point above has been validated.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 08:49 AM
Jan 2014

Always at least one man around here who will defend any hateful piece of filth if it's porny.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
50. Not from what that post said. That person's post did not suggest he found it sexy/porny at all.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:45 AM
Jan 2014

Why did you leap to that conclusion?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
58. the person defended something that sexually degrades black women
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:06 AM
Jan 2014

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

CFLDem This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

83. Who can't resist Hillary in that pantsuit?!

No wonder Bill is a faithful and chaste husband.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
51. At least the racism is considered a problem, at least.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:46 AM
Jan 2014

In actual porn, racism apparently isn't an issue worthy of comment for most.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
64. There IS a white version of that chair.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:47 PM
Jan 2014

Cali just posted a link that includes a pic of it. Just as ugly and inappropriate, either way.



regnaD kciN

(26,035 posts)
40. For those here who are soccer fans...
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:07 AM
Jan 2014

...that woman's boyfriend is the owner of Chelsea FC -- the George Steinbrenner of world football.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
44. Reminds me of the scene in "A Clockwork Orange".
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:15 AM
Jan 2014

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)
47. It doesn't look very comfortable..
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:24 AM
Jan 2014

Appears someone strapped an ugly plexiglass/vinyl cushion on a mannequin.

MineralMan

(146,195 posts)
52. Damn Rich People!
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:49 AM
Jan 2014

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.

tavernier

(12,322 posts)
60. meh
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:22 AM
Jan 2014

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)
61. Dasha Zhukova spent many years in CA, private schools and UC Santa Barbara
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:44 AM
Jan 2014

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.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
65. Just ....... why?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:47 PM
Jan 2014

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)
88. What 'context' did she think being photographed in it gave?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:00 PM
Jan 2014

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)
90. It's in the post you replied to.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:18 PM
Jan 2014
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."


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)
94. I still can't see what the context is that makes it bad to use it to illustrate her
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:58 PM
Jan 2014

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)
96. I don't know.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:03 PM
Jan 2014

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,166 posts)
85. He's famous, she isn't
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 03:49 PM
Jan 2014

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)
116. So, there is no news here, just celebs to talk about, no real issue or people.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jan 2014

For example, what is the name of the chair?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,166 posts)
119. Do you mean 'name of the chair', or 'name of the woman who posed for it'?
Wed Jan 22, 2014, 05:23 AM
Jan 2014

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)
68. Wow. I can't even begin to describe the awful stuff in that image
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:08 PM
Jan 2014

At least these privileged idiots made it public. Now the world know.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
73. Stay classy, Chelsea
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jan 2014

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.

2naSalit

(86,083 posts)
81. Aside from the disgusting image in the foreground
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:53 PM
Jan 2014

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.

hueymahl

(2,418 posts)
101. Be disgusted if you want, but it is art
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:31 PM
Jan 2014

Tacky, inappropriate, disgusting, mysogonistic and racist, but still art. And political/social speech. It is art for those reasons only.

bluesbassman

(19,312 posts)
106. Exactly.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 05:57 PM
Jan 2014

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)
111. so what? does that give it some sort of special dispensation?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 06:26 PM
Jan 2014

saying "it's art" is kind of meaningless.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
118. Here's a pic of the original chair this one was based on.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:44 PM
Jan 2014

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Russian oligarch's girlfr...