Why I Don't Get Nude

I don't have a problem with naked.  I like to think that I am free and confident in my own skin. Sometimes clothes can be a veneer, masking my much loved imperfections (a tummy that reveals a love of wings, home made pizza, cheese, white wine and cake), a carapace that can be restricting and confining.

I do, however, have a problem with nude. The very particular colour palette that is often used to describe an indistinct pale pink, the "in" shade for this season's frothy dresses in a middling shade of cappuccino that falls somewhere in between faint tan and English rose. I have been taught that words on their own have no power: it is the meaning we ascribe to them that weigh them down. Nude, therefore, as touted on the pages of Grazia and emblazoned in glossy Glamour is meant to create the illusion of flesh toned nakedness. I have long known that this nude is not meant to refer to my flesh. Nude bras and "natural toned" tights had already disabused me of my preconception. This was, however,  recently brought to the attention of mainstream society by the US press.

The polemic arose out of the fact that Indian designer Naeem Khan designed the dress featured above for Michelle Obama  and described it as a "startling silver sequin, abstract, floral nude strapless gown". I was first of all perturbed that one dress required so many descriptive aadjectives. Then it appeared that the word nude had been added almost as an afterthought, to impress the fashion mafia by stamping the dress with this season's magic word to ensure automatic entry into the stylistic megaclub. For the record, the dress, by any stretch of the imagination was far from nude- maybe a jaundiced nude but not healthy fashionable nude. No need.

Naeem (who really should know better) subsequently described the dress as "champagne coloured" but this probably caused it to lose some of its je ne sais quoi- although not to me because I love champagne.  He did not escape unscathed, however. This ignited a debate about the use of the word nude and whether this was legitimate. Some sections of the press even asked whether the word was unassumingly racist.

 A word cannot be racist without a context, whether historical or current. This debate on legitimacy misses the point. There is nothing wrong with the word nude. There can be nothing wrong with a words on its own. There is nothing wrong with developing a colour palette the effect of which is to provide the illusion of nakedness. It isn't even a question of the appropriateness of the word when the colour is used on a darker skinned person. The word nude is only the affirmation of the status quo- that I can never walk into Marks and Spencers and find the correct shade of skin toned tights and I have to purchase them on Sundays in Lewisham market,  that I can never purchase Clinique at Boots because they don't sell my shade so I need to buy higher priced Mac and Bobby Brown and that the skin toned bra in the Next multipack looks very weird against my skin.

In that respect, there is nothing shocking about nude. What is shocking is how little progress we have made in convincing multinationals of the power of the black pound (or dollar). If, we had, I am sure that there would be multiple shades of nude, reflecting a long list of different shades- from brown to coffee to caramel to beige to espresso. Getting down to the bare bones of it, this is not to underestimate the power of words. It is not a ridiculous suggestion that the word nude reinforces the status quo- the power of suggestion is insidious. And that's the naked truth.

Mrs O: Not Clear Enough?

I love Michelle Obama. I loved her on the campaign trail, debunking the mystique of Knight Barack with her real wife tales of stinky socks and smelly cigarettes. I loved her when she equalised and patted the Queen’s back, deferent but not tied to centuries of outdated hierarchical protocol. I love the fact that she graced the covers of Vogue with a pull-power to rival Angelina Jolie, and yet still looked so relaxed and comfortable in her J Crew slacks, working in her kitchen garden. I love the fact that she looks mummy-easy as well as boardroom ready, all in one go. I love the bob. And the sleeveless dresses. I like the fact that she didn’t appear as a soft toy on the campaign trail- she was a strong, proud woman and if they wanted to cast her in the role of angry black woman, so be it. She remains an astereotypical first lady- one who lives outside of the box. And you how I feel about living in the box. To hell with the box!

However, as much as I like Mrs O, I like Michelle Lavaughn Robinson even more. See, Michelle Robinson grew up on the South Side of Chicago- not one of the best neighbourhoods in the United States. She attended Princeton, then Harvard Law School and then worked at a corporate law firm where she was one of only two black lawyers. I find her views in her undergraduate thesis particularly poignant and telling:

“Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black Community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilise all my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost. My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my “Blackness” more than ever before.”

She then states after discussing her experiences at Princeton:

“These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society...at the same time, however, it is possible that my four years of exposure to a predominantly White, Ivy-League university has instilled in me, certain conservative values. I find myself striving for the same goals as many of my White classmates- acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. My goals after Princeton are not as clear as before”

The Michelle who writes this is astute yet sensitive, and bold enough to engage in a cultural debate. She acknowledges that she is complicit in the uneasiness of assimilation. I find Michelle O lacking this particular quality. I do not wish to add to the ridiculous debate of whether the First Family are black enough. I am just intrigued as to whether she still feels that pull that she felt at Princeton to issues affecting the black community? Does Mrs O (and Mr O) feel that there are particular issues with which she feels a certain affinity? For instance, gun crime, violence in public schools, affordable housing –issues that affect black families more disproportionately?

I have a feeling that Michelle Robinson would have rocked up to the White House in an afro and that on inauguration day she would have worn Deola Sagoe or Patricia Mills and she would have insisted that Mr O wore some Ozwald Boateng. She would have been rocking some banging kente. Mrs O just seems much more conservative than I expected her to be and seems to be quite accepting in certain ways of her climate in her uber-sleek bob that blows Condi Rice's out of the stratosphere. Where is that fire? Where is that oomph? That muchiness that challenge the uncomfortable topics?

Or maybe I am just equating her to that little girl who grew up in a small town, who placed her international economic development dreams on hold after she went to a Russell Group University and ended up fulfilling the one of two prophecy in a corporate law firm. Don’t get me wrong, she just might end up mentoring an intern who would become the next UK Prime Minister.