#THE GREAT SCISSORING. but barring that they are fallible and I'm opinionated so plz exit at the block button. you'll find friends there.

[filthforfriends]

When I go to answer a serious ask, I usually type out my initial ideas, save it to drafts, and craft a response after I've had time to think. But recently, some of the asks have just disappeared. Unfortunately, this was one of those instances. (I'm recalling to the best of my ability).

Anon said they felt like the only one noticing how Maneskin use people as props in their photos, usually People of Color.

This topic touches on some of the most historically and currently relevant subsects of society. Race & ethnicity. Social development & communication, (now in the age of social media). Entertainment & representation. Plus, others I'm not thinking of. I want to acknowledge how deserving of an in depth discussion this topic is, while also acknowledging that I'm not informed enough to broach it. So this is gonna be pretty surface, anon, and I'm sorry for that.

What does it even mean to use somebody as a prop?

Props are used to add detail and context which make the subject or background more interesting. As inanimate objects, they only exist to enhance the scene. Therefore, to treat someone like a prop is to prioritize the way they can improve your image over that person's autonomy. Sure, both the prop and subject can both have individuality, as long as one serves to make the other look interesting.

So who's culpable? The subject, the photographer/videographer, perhaps a director of sorts? Personally, I think the blame is shared and situationally dependent.

Below are the most obvious examples of Maneskin using a person as a prop, posted to their insta pages. The trend anon pointed out is evident. Admittedly, I don't have a good sample size here, though. A ton of Maneskin's content is only available on their stories. Especially content with non-band members (which is what anon is referencing), since Maneskin's publicist prefers to post just the band.

I wonder how many of the people in these photos gave informed consent. (Not necessarily to a band member, just someone). As in "This photo will be posted without your name and seen by millions, but you won't receive royalties." Because some of these images Maneskin (the brand) can profit from via merchandise and copyrights. Conversely, most of the folks in the photos will experience poverty in their lifetime. Some of Maneskin's outfits are worth more than the other person makes in a year and they're treating them like a plant. There's also the safety concern. If any of these people have someone in the whole world that wishes them harm, that person can now find their job/neighborhood.

I know these photos aren't all bad. Victoria probably got consent to post pic #5, just a harmless prank. The woman in pic #3 was likely thrilled to be sitting next to such a handsome young man and thinks all social media is Facebook (which she hates). But why take pictures with the Black men in photos #2 & #4? What about the Latinas in #1 & #12? They're are using POCs as visually compelling markers of cultural and ethnic differences to say something meaningful about themselves. Look how far I've come! Look how successful my music is! You envy me, right?