The industry has been long criticized for so many things that I can no longer keep up with it’s B-list behavior; Sexism, racism, inhuman-consciousness…you name it, the list goes on. However Louboutin’s recent launch of his “Nude Flats” collection have put one issue on the spotlight for me which gave a different perspective on what the industry considers “nude”.
For the past couple of years, go into any department store and ask for a nude sweater or a nude anything…you would automatically get offered a pinkish colored item that is really close to the color of a nude skin…a nude White skin. I never realized how racially unconscious it was to consider a nude color, the color of a white person’s skin and make it the only labeling option to depict a certain color tone. No one would ever give you a brown shaded sweater after having asked for a nude-color sweater – neither a yellowish one. Can’t a brown color depict a nude color? The notion that the industry’s use of terminology “nude” to describe a shell like color is racist, is not new to world and certainly not new for anyone who is hooked up on social media. In 2010 Michelle Obama created a stir, when she wore a shell colored dress which she described “nude”. “Associated Press said it was “flesh-colored”, the color of Obama’s own flesh notwithstanding. Now AP appears to have revised that description to “champagne”, an act that has triggered debate about fashion’s use of the word “nude”. “Nude? For whom?” asks Jezebel magazine.”(Paula Cocozza, The Guardian).
Weather its political incorrectness or racial in-consciousness, the use of the term “Nude” – a flesh-like color – is clearly no longer acceptable. At least that’s what Louboutin has tried to prove with the latest “Nude Flats” which colors range between fair blush to rich chestnut.