The ad for L'Oreal's Feria hair highlighting product sparked outrage when it appeared in the current edition of Elle magazine because the singer, whose father is African American and mother is Creole, looked almost completely white with strawberry blonde hair.
The New York Post said that the ad was shocking in a piece called 'Beyonce the Pale' and that she looked like a "weird, nearly white version of herself".
Celebrity website TMZ claimed the ad had been "severely photoshopped" and set up a poll asking its readers "Is the ad a slap to blacks?"
One of its readers left a comment saying: "Shame on L'Oreal for doing this. I see no excuse for this. If it was uneven skin tone then they just as easily could have made her a tone darker but they did not do that. They made her white."
L'Oreal has denied that the company digitally altered Knowles' complexion. A spokesperson for the cosmetics giant said: "Beyonce Knowles has been a spokesperson for the L'Oreal Paris brand since 2001. We highly value our relationship with Ms Knowles. It is categorically untrue that L'Oreal Paris altered Miss Knowles's features or skin-tone in the campaign for Feria hair colour."
Some fashion experts have said that the ad is a sign of negative attitudes within the fashion industry towards women with darker skin.
The Voice, Britain's best-selling black newspaper, said that it would be "disgusted" if the image had been "whitewashed".
Knowles has a contract with L'Oreal worth £2.3m over five years. Her representative declined to comment beyond L'Oreal's statement.
Comments
I took my daughter to see Beyonce in concert in Tokyo last year. She looked nothing like this. As my daughter is mixed-race and sees people like Beyonce as a role model, I find this utterly appalling.
you only have to look at her album cover to see how blatant this is
Inna A - 08/08/2008
Every model is 'photoshoped' regardless of skin colour.This is just the way beauty industry works nowadays...
is it just a stunt for an as yet to be launched skin whitening product?
im guessing beyonce see's the picture and chooses to run with it, so what are her comments on the issue?
I think its a disgrace. She has obviously been photoshopped, and whilst we all know that the beauty industry does this, they certainly wouldn't be making Kate Moss a darker shade of night, in order to sell fake tan.
Beyonce is obviously not going to say anything, cos she has her £2.3m to think about. Its a shame though because the Beyonce/L'Oreal relationship has been seen certainly among my group of friends as a positive thing and this could seriously damage it.
We should all continue to post comments on blogs, so that they get the message that this was perhaps a photoshop too far.
It seems almost unthinkable that a firm would do this in 2008. They signed Beyonce - what is the point of doctoring the image so much that it looks like someone else?
I just don't get it.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
Does anyone think the skin was perhaps lightened because it didn't sit well with the hair colour they were advertising? And was a simple case of aesthetics? rather than a slap in the face to all black people? If they wanted to slap black people in the face then why hire Beyonce? It doesn't send a great message but I believe the fundamental problem is photoshopping not racism! Photoshopping is ultimately a lie to sell a product, lies confuse, and send the wrong messages to people such as - be thinner, don't have spots, don't have a wonky eye (a certain motor-sports racer), change your skin to match your hair colour, but then we want to see perfect things don't we?!
@Jenny Watson, how does changing Beyonce's skin because it didn't sit well with her skin colour make it right? If it was "a simple case of aesthetics" then why did they select Beyonce for the campaign? Why not choose a model with fairer skin who would suit the hair colour L'Oreal are advertising? You are saying that it's ok to change Beyonce's ethnicity through photo manipulation to sell a product which is surely not right is it not? Does this not send the message to black women that you can only dye your hair a lighter colour if you also make your skin colour lighter because the "aesthetics" don't work otherwise? Is this not racist? I think you have completely missed the point.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
Mark Smith - please read read my submission and try to get my point!
@Jenny Watson, yes I did read your post and I'm frankly shocked you seem to think it's ok to change a black women's skin colour if it doesn't work "aesthetically". That is your point. I think you're trying to be well intentioned but you're not getting the arguments and your point is dangerous and wrong on ethical grounds. Would it be ok to flatten a black male model's nose in an ad because it didn't "aesthetically"? No it wouldn't. Basically, what you are arguing is that it is ok to tone down someone's ethnic traits to make an ad more palatable to a predominantly white audience.
@Jenny Watson Errr well if the skin was lightened because it didn't sit well with the hair then they were probably using the wrong model. Just a suggestion.
They could have chosen a different hair colour from the Feria range if they thought it didn't match her skin tone. Changing the colour of her skin is unacceptable.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
OK for those of you that need my point spelling out to you in terms easier to decipherr:
1) No I don't agree with what L'Oreal has produced for this piece of communication I think it is ultimately flawed and a bad judgement call - but I can imagine what their priorities were and second photo-shoots don't come cheap
2) I think you are all being ridiculous if you really believe they are purposefully being racist
and 3) I suggest that your energy for this argument would be better directed at photoshopping in general as every time we lie in communication we send someone the wrong message!
4) But we are all consumers - and by photoshopping they are trying to appeal to our needs and wants - so ultimately we have to take some responsibility
Now shall we let someone else have a say? I think we have all devoted far to much of our grey matter to the useless messaging L'Oreal has developed, this morning - don't you?
dano - 08/08/2008
Too many words Jenny my head hurts- can you spell you point out in 4 one sentence bullet points please? thanks
@Jenny Watson, you are mistaken if you think writing these comments involved "too much grey matter". It's all pretty straightforward to me. As your misguided comments show, maybe this subject does involve a bit too much grey matterbut only from you. As for "purposefully racist" I'm staggered. An organisation can be racist in its actions without doing so purposefully. Are you arguing that racism is only racism when a clear deliberate racist agenda is followed? No one thinks L'Oreal sat down and said "we hate black people, let's piss them". But some think their actions are racist.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
I'm bored of you - go chase someone else with your torch you blinkered angry man!
NH - 08/08/2008
another case of celebrity overexposure.
Jesus you lot over react a lot.... let's face some facts (rather than 'ethical dilemas') Everything is photoshopped and yes they probably lightened the image so the hair looks better... that doesn't make them rascists. It could have easily just been harsh light in the photo shoot... like the image above, "oh my god, her shoulder is white meaning black people shouldn't have shoulders!! It's opression!!"
No ones a rascist, no ones offended enough to do anything majorly affective and now no one cares...
It's an utter disgrace for such two well known brands. not only does it offend black people, it's completely derogatory.
@ Jenny
For the record - i agree with you on "And was a simple case of aesthetics? rather than a slap in the face to all black people? If they wanted to slap black people in the face then why hire Beyonce" - why do that ?
You shouldn't be allowed to photoshop an image of a person without putting the disclaimer *Based on a real person* at the bottom, as the more I look at magazine covers, the more I realise that the "people" on the front aren't really people at all, but imaginings of what people could look like.
Which is weird, as real people are much more interesting to look at.
I think Justin makes a good point - the things that make people interesting to look at - whether that's attractive, amusing, intriguing, or whatever - is the differences between that individual and other individuals. Photoshopping in fashion seems to strive for some form of homogenised 'look' - not clones, but beauties who fit within a strata of what is determined to be attractive - and surely that's just missing the point.
Beyonce is Beyonce - she's visually attractive because of the way that she looks and to water that down is a dis-service to her and her fans, to the consumers who want to buy products that she endorses, infact to everyone - it's not a race-thing or a gender-thing, it's equally offensive to airbrush Kate Moss, Eva Mendez, Lucy Lui, Preity Zinta or anyone else.
Remove spots and blemishes if you must for aesthetics, but leave skin-tone, hair-colour and the variety of other essential differences that make individuals unique alone.
On the other hand, regardless of whether she's been photoshopped or not, her hair has been dyed and she's wearing lots of make up, so you could argue we're not really seeing the real her anyway.
Whitewash
Greenwash
Fairwash
Is nothing real anymore?
Comments
John Goodman - 08/08/2008
I took my daughter to see Beyonce in concert in Tokyo last year. She looked nothing like this. As my daughter is mixed-race and sees people like Beyonce as a role model, I find this utterly appalling.
ryan mcl - 08/08/2008
you only have to look at her album cover to see how blatant this is
Inna A - 08/08/2008
Every model is 'photoshoped' regardless of skin colour.This is just the way beauty industry works nowadays...
Phillip Slade - 08/08/2008
is it just a stunt for an as yet to be launched skin whitening product?
Dwayne Lindsay - 08/08/2008
im guessing beyonce see's the picture and chooses to run with it, so what are her comments on the issue?
evelyn marfo-sackey - 08/08/2008
I think its a disgrace. She has obviously been photoshopped, and whilst we all know that the beauty industry does this, they certainly wouldn't be making Kate Moss a darker shade of night, in order to sell fake tan. Beyonce is obviously not going to say anything, cos she has her £2.3m to think about. Its a shame though because the Beyonce/L'Oreal relationship has been seen certainly among my group of friends as a positive thing and this could seriously damage it. We should all continue to post comments on blogs, so that they get the message that this was perhaps a photoshop too far.
Gordon Macmillan - 08/08/2008
It seems almost unthinkable that a firm would do this in 2008. They signed Beyonce - what is the point of doctoring the image so much that it looks like someone else?
I just don't get it.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
Does anyone think the skin was perhaps lightened because it didn't sit well with the hair colour they were advertising? And was a simple case of aesthetics? rather than a slap in the face to all black people? If they wanted to slap black people in the face then why hire Beyonce? It doesn't send a great message but I believe the fundamental problem is photoshopping not racism! Photoshopping is ultimately a lie to sell a product, lies confuse, and send the wrong messages to people such as - be thinner, don't have spots, don't have a wonky eye (a certain motor-sports racer), change your skin to match your hair colour, but then we want to see perfect things don't we?!
Mark Smith - 08/08/2008
@Jenny Watson, how does changing Beyonce's skin because it didn't sit well with her skin colour make it right? If it was "a simple case of aesthetics" then why did they select Beyonce for the campaign? Why not choose a model with fairer skin who would suit the hair colour L'Oreal are advertising? You are saying that it's ok to change Beyonce's ethnicity through photo manipulation to sell a product which is surely not right is it not? Does this not send the message to black women that you can only dye your hair a lighter colour if you also make your skin colour lighter because the "aesthetics" don't work otherwise? Is this not racist? I think you have completely missed the point.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
Mark Smith - please read read my submission and try to get my point!
Mark Smith - 08/08/2008
@Jenny Watson, yes I did read your post and I'm frankly shocked you seem to think it's ok to change a black women's skin colour if it doesn't work "aesthetically". That is your point. I think you're trying to be well intentioned but you're not getting the arguments and your point is dangerous and wrong on ethical grounds. Would it be ok to flatten a black male model's nose in an ad because it didn't "aesthetically"? No it wouldn't. Basically, what you are arguing is that it is ok to tone down someone's ethnic traits to make an ad more palatable to a predominantly white audience.
Gordon Macmillan - 08/08/2008
@Jenny Watson Errr well if the skin was lightened because it didn't sit well with the hair then they were probably using the wrong model. Just a suggestion.
Nikki Sandison - 08/08/2008
They could have chosen a different hair colour from the Feria range if they thought it didn't match her skin tone. Changing the colour of her skin is unacceptable.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
OK for those of you that need my point spelling out to you in terms easier to decipherr: 1) No I don't agree with what L'Oreal has produced for this piece of communication I think it is ultimately flawed and a bad judgement call - but I can imagine what their priorities were and second photo-shoots don't come cheap 2) I think you are all being ridiculous if you really believe they are purposefully being racist and 3) I suggest that your energy for this argument would be better directed at photoshopping in general as every time we lie in communication we send someone the wrong message! 4) But we are all consumers - and by photoshopping they are trying to appeal to our needs and wants - so ultimately we have to take some responsibility Now shall we let someone else have a say? I think we have all devoted far to much of our grey matter to the useless messaging L'Oreal has developed, this morning - don't you?
dano - 08/08/2008
Too many words Jenny my head hurts- can you spell you point out in 4 one sentence bullet points please? thanks
Mark Smith - 08/08/2008
@Jenny Watson, you are mistaken if you think writing these comments involved "too much grey matter". It's all pretty straightforward to me. As your misguided comments show, maybe this subject does involve a bit too much grey matterbut only from you. As for "purposefully racist" I'm staggered. An organisation can be racist in its actions without doing so purposefully. Are you arguing that racism is only racism when a clear deliberate racist agenda is followed? No one thinks L'Oreal sat down and said "we hate black people, let's piss them". But some think their actions are racist.
Jenny - 08/08/2008
I'm bored of you - go chase someone else with your torch you blinkered angry man!
NH - 08/08/2008
another case of celebrity overexposure.
Edward Burge - 08/08/2008
Jesus you lot over react a lot.... let's face some facts (rather than 'ethical dilemas') Everything is photoshopped and yes they probably lightened the image so the hair looks better... that doesn't make them rascists. It could have easily just been harsh light in the photo shoot... like the image above, "oh my god, her shoulder is white meaning black people shouldn't have shoulders!! It's opression!!" No ones a rascist, no ones offended enough to do anything majorly affective and now no one cares...
nardia martin - 08/08/2008
It's an utter disgrace for such two well known brands. not only does it offend black people, it's completely derogatory.
AwallafaShagba - 11/08/2008
@ Jenny For the record - i agree with you on "And was a simple case of aesthetics? rather than a slap in the face to all black people? If they wanted to slap black people in the face then why hire Beyonce" - why do that ?
Justin Driskill - 12/08/2008
You shouldn't be allowed to photoshop an image of a person without putting the disclaimer *Based on a real person* at the bottom, as the more I look at magazine covers, the more I realise that the "people" on the front aren't really people at all, but imaginings of what people could look like. Which is weird, as real people are much more interesting to look at.
gotnoteef - 12/08/2008
I think Justin makes a good point - the things that make people interesting to look at - whether that's attractive, amusing, intriguing, or whatever - is the differences between that individual and other individuals. Photoshopping in fashion seems to strive for some form of homogenised 'look' - not clones, but beauties who fit within a strata of what is determined to be attractive - and surely that's just missing the point. Beyonce is Beyonce - she's visually attractive because of the way that she looks and to water that down is a dis-service to her and her fans, to the consumers who want to buy products that she endorses, infact to everyone - it's not a race-thing or a gender-thing, it's equally offensive to airbrush Kate Moss, Eva Mendez, Lucy Lui, Preity Zinta or anyone else. Remove spots and blemishes if you must for aesthetics, but leave skin-tone, hair-colour and the variety of other essential differences that make individuals unique alone.
kirsty stevenson - 15/08/2008
On the other hand, regardless of whether she's been photoshopped or not, her hair has been dyed and she's wearing lots of make up, so you could argue we're not really seeing the real her anyway.
gotnoteef - 15/08/2008
fair point
Grilla Login - 28/08/2009
Whitewash Greenwash Fairwash Is nothing real anymore?