I thought Samatha Critchell’s description of Michelle Obama’s light tan or “champagne” dress as “flesh colored” might get her fired. If nothing else, I figured it’d be warning to all other journalists out there to, for gawd’s sake!, watch your racist language.
But, alas, the parade of “champagne”-colored gowns at this year’s Grammy’s had led a flood of fashion writers talking about the color “nude.” Here are just a handful of examples from the first three pages of my google search
Elsewhere in the Los Angeles Times:
VH1:
Keri Hilson and her dress:
Popsugar:
Of course (almost) no one is actually “nude”-colored, but the term still manages to naturalize whiteness insofar as white people’s skin color tends to match colors described as “nude” moreso than the skin color of non-white people (though there are always exceptions). I’m really surprised that journalists are still managing to get this language past their editors.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 60
paul — February 2, 2010
Are ther still editors in magazines? I thought they were leaving all the corrections to Word's spellchecker...
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — February 2, 2010
this makes me so mad... I've got brown skin and those so called "NUDE" dresses don't match my skin color!
Angel H. — February 2, 2010
It amazes me that they used the word "nude" to describe those dresses. It's as if someone gave them a list of who wore what and they never saw the pictures beforehand.
CLM — February 2, 2010
Especially egregious considering that several of the women described have brown skin.
Nique — February 2, 2010
Someone needs to tell them that "nude" only works as a color if the wearer looks nude wearing it. Did anyone see a picture of one of the Williams sisters in a yellow top/dress thing with nude shorts? People thought she wasn't wearing underwear. Now THAT is nude.
Here, found a pic. http://www.bittenandbound.com/2010/01/24/venus-williams-flesh-colored-underwear/
Marianne — February 2, 2010
I know that this is not exactly what the post is about, but I find it ironic. I've got very white skin, and all of those colours are too brown for me. (Except for two or three of the ones in the last picture.) My skin is either like milk, or pale pink (during summer). If I try to buy councealer or foundation, I have a hard time finding one that suits me, as they are all too dark. Either that, or they are yellowish. I don't want to look like an orange, I need a blueish white colour to look normal.
The morale of this story, is probably: Fashion reporters don't know what any type of skin looks like (except their own spray-tanned skin, of course).
oprah — February 2, 2010
nude /nud, nyud/ adjective
a light grayish-yellow brown to brownish-pink color.
Not everything is racist, people.
andrew — February 2, 2010
After forwarding a fourth S.I. post in a week to friends, I just thought I'd drop a note saying that I think you folks are the best!
Kat — February 2, 2010
What I would be more interested in: How would those wearing it (including Creole Beyonce and biracial Rihanna) would have called the color if asked by a red carpet reporter?
Also: Isn't there some type of color index? If so, we should start with officially renaming "nude" in that index into something else (beige-pinky? White skin?). With tons of press releases, which even some of those journalists might read.
Kat — February 2, 2010
And you forgot this one, InStyle:
"What's Right Now? Grammy’s Red Carpet Trend: Nude Dresses"
"Everyone's wearing nude dresses"
I also wonder how a fashion trend like beige dresses is set. Really curious about that. Check out this one: "Glamour Slaves to Fashion: Goodbye LBD, Hello Nude Dress"
I absolutely HATE the juxtaposition of those three images... and top it off with the awkward (in this context) title, "Slaves to Fashion".
mc — February 2, 2010
While I understand and appreciate the racial commentary here, I'm gonna keep my linguist pants on and wonder if there would be some way to quantify the points at which colour names become divorced from their original reference points? I really doubt most people think of "burnt sienna" as actually referring to a type of clay, or think of a city in Italy where a dye used to be produced when they hear "magenta." Is this a crappy argument because "nude" still carries a strong meaning of "skin," or is it possible for there to be a psychological/semantic separation between the assumed original reference point and the colour word?
So to what extent is "flesh" or "nude," as mentioned above, "just a colour?" And if this is true, to what extent is its use offensive, even if its origin is somehow discriminatory? Did the colour name come into existence into the English language centuries ago when the language was forming, when presumably most folks speaking the language were of pale Anglo Saxon/Northern European descent?
Also, in makeup, "nudes" usually refer to colours without a strong red or blue component -- and tend to range the spectrum of the actual human skin tones from light to dark. And also as a technicality, even the pale white girls' dresses don't really match their skin tones either, so "nude" isn't even accurate for them.
Again though, obviously the fact that people take offense and feel marginalized is the point here, but still, I think the language development stuff is still interesting...
Also, wouldn't the word "Khaki" be kind of problematic too? WHATSUP COLONIALISM?!
carrie — February 2, 2010
Immediately after reading this article, I looked nude up in the dictionary, as it seems others did as well. Nude is a color right?
Here's what I got from Webster's online edition: "nude (NOUN), of the color of white people's skin," so it seems to satisfy both arguments; that nude is a color, but yet it is used as an indicator of normalcy in our culture.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nude
Austin C — February 2, 2010
I think this is one of those grey areas, technically it is nude color, but the definition of nude itself is rather problematic.
Sarah — February 2, 2010
I'll use my imagine that this is a fairly pervasive problem in the undergarment industry, as well. If one were wearing anything sheer, having undergarments that can at least approximate one's skin tone would be useful. I'm sure that brassieres these days come in a rainbow of colors but I'm willing to bet Monopoly money that only a very limited palette goes by the name "flesh-toned."
The Martian — February 2, 2010
I'm surprised at the denial of white privilege in some of the comments. The word "nude" is applied to the color BECAUSE of white privilege. Who is going to imagine that "nude" means dark brown? No one. That's because of white privilege. There's no point trying to redefine "nude" as applying to everyone; just don't use it. The substitutes some of the post-ers listed are much more creative. Clothing catalogues also have lots of interesting-sounding names for a variety of colors (of course they're doing it to sell products).
Saying that "nude" could apply to everyone is like saying "white" could apply to everyone.
karinova — February 2, 2010
About depictions of the "nude look":
In many of the fashion spreads I've seen lately featuring so-called "nude" clothing, the point is the illusion-of-nudity effect, not the color itself. Judging by how often this is coming up, The Nude Look is currently "in." It's all about clothing that matches your skin. IOW, skin color is in. And yet, all you see are pale-skinned models wearing taupe clothes. I have yet to see a dark/nonwhite model demonstrating The Nude Look the way Katy Perry is above. What, this look is only "in" for the light-skinned? Seems like a very obvious opportunity to notice that skin comes in a bunch of colors is being (willfully?) missed.
If nude-illusion is the fashion trend of the moment, it'd be kinda nice to see a spread featuring models in a range of skin tones, each wearing the appropriate color to achieve their "nude look." (That is: it'd be nice to see that someone in the magazine industry realizes that nude is an equal-opportunity look— for both models and consumers.)
Anonymous — February 3, 2010
i dont understand why the term nude is beeing used for this particualr color
lc — February 3, 2010
i dont understand why the term nude would be used as this color
Henry — February 3, 2010
Actually there is a internationally defined colour named 'flesh'. It is defined by standards like RAL, Citadel and Humbrol. It's been like that for the last 30 years or so. Why it has turned into 'nude' in the media one can only guess. I'm not going to argue if it is right or not, but perhaps this discussion would benefit from looking at the ethymology of terms, instead of just going into some sort of media-frenzy...
Tom — February 3, 2010
Don't judge people for being colour blind :P
Seriously though, none of these dresses are the colour of the person wearing them. It just seems to be the 'in' adjective right now. I doubt there's much more to it. In the world of fashion, the only value is hype. Keep fighting this one, Lisa! When enough 'cool' people complain, it'll go.
Trix — February 3, 2010
For chrissakes. What happened to "beige" or "mushroom" or "taupe" or anyone of the zillions of names for that boring colour, and that would at least be accurate rather than patently wrong (and racist).
heather leila — February 3, 2010
Band aids and ace bandages are problematic too. And while I had thought of it before, it didn't strike me how wrong it is that you can't buy band aids in a range of flesh tones until I worked at a school.
Little kids are constantly cutting their fingers and asking for band aids. The first time I put a "flesh" colored band aid on a black student's finger I felt really sad. I don't know if a 5 year old understands why band aids are that color, and why they don't match his skin, but I know eventually he will understand. It made me sad because the school was 99.5% black students, but the administration and teachers were mostly white. No one had thought about it. All they had to do was buy band aids for kids, with cartoon characters that come in red and blue and pink. Such a simple solution, but NO ONE at the school even thought it was a problem.
Elise — February 3, 2010
I take offense to the use of the word "non-white" in this article. "Non-white" implies that white is the norm, and that any additional ethnicity is "other." White is not the norm, people.
Evan — February 4, 2010
I think the answer to why we are seeing this is much more simple than journalists who somehow don't understand their describing these dresses as "nude" is ridiculous --
"Nude" is used because it is sensational - it indexes well on search engines and it catches the prudish American eye.
The editors here are showing their true colors (punsville, pop. me)
Emily Arth — February 26, 2010
This is a little bit of a push. I realize the point that is being made. HOWEVER, the dictionary DOES list one definition of nude as the following:
"a light grayish-yellow brown to brownish-pink color."
I would guess this is the reason that many editors find using the word nude to describe a color appropriate.
If we're getting so critical and descriptive, why do we called many dark skinned individuals "black" and find that to be acceptable? One definition of black:
"lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it."
Though some people have skin that is very dark on a spectrum of skin colors, no one in the world truly has black skin...
Reba — March 2, 2010
Still going strong with that term
http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/gallery/0,,20347699,00.html#20747712
Plain Ol’ and African American Brides and Grooms » Sociological Images — March 26, 2010
[...] posts on recent descriptions of beige as “flesh-colored” (featuring Michelle Obama and Beyonce et al.) and our posts on bandaids and other “flesh-colored” items and lotion for “normal to darker [...]
Sarah S. — April 17, 2010
Okay people, don't get offended so quickly. When they write "nude", they are referring to a colour. Many, if not all, make-up brands use the word "nude" to describe a colour of lipstick, lip liner...
Hope that helps!
What Color Is “Skin”? » Sociological Images — May 31, 2010
[...] other examples, see our post on “flesh”-colored clothing. var object = SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title:'What Color Is “Skin”?', url: [...]
Rosh — July 2, 2010
I don't think that this should be taken so offensively. If it was "flesh-" or "skin-"colored, then I think it would be a more direct contradiction, but "nude" is just what that color is called. Even a nude, white person varies in color, not just from person to person but all over their body. Clearly it's not intended to be a *literal* term, as if Beyonce should be able to deceive us into believing she is nude when wearing that dress, and that "white person nude" is adequate to accomplish this effect. Should the term "blush" be no longer used to describe light pink?