'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
United Talent partner, board member and co-owner Jeremy Zimmer is known as an avid collector of contemporary art which he shares with the agency offices. Then again, he's not the most sensitive of agents. (For instance, I remember him ignoring the complaints of the women in the office when he used to urinate out the window of UTA's old offices.) So on September 16th, Zimmer decided to install in UTA public space on the 4th floor a photograph of an African youth and his chained monkey (photo left). Like all the pictures hanging at the agency, there was no identifier. I'm told that, shortly after, a group of UTA employees comprised primarily of African Americans complained to the tenpercentery's human resources department that the image was "derogatory" to blacks. "Collectively the employees of color now feel uncomfortable and unwelcome," one of the staffers emailed me when it happened. "This is not the first time racial discrimination has been exhibited at United Talent Agency, but it is the first time that it has been put on public view."
A discussion ensued between the agency owners and the human resources department, which then proceeded to explain the pedigree of the photographer who had taken the picture. 
He's Pieter Hugo, the award-winning South African whose haunting and often provocative portraits try to portray the reality of the African continent's human condition, and this "Dayaba Usman With The Monkey Clear, Nigeria 2005" was part of a very powerful series of portraits about men and their relationships with the animals they have tamed. But despite the agency's affirmations that the artwork was not racist, the protesting staffers still said it made them uncomfortable. "I understand that some things are more offensive to others. However, if an image is offensive to anyone, in my opinion, it should be removed. Especially when there is an underlying tension felt by a minority group," one of the African American staffers inside UTA emailed me.
In the end, Zimmer removed the photo from the agency's foyer and placed it inside his own office. Since then, UTA tells me, there have been no more complaints.
Loading ...
Sad statement of our P.C. days if this is true. That’s a powerful picture. How anyone, of any race, in the context of an American talent agency can claim to be offended by on racial terms it is hard to imagine. We’re a mentally crippled culture, without question.
Once a pig, always a pig. He will never change.
If the monkey is looking for a job, he should apply at WMA.
What the hell is racist about the photo? A black man and his pet monkey– big deal.
I guess you can find racism anywhere if you really look for it. Jesus Christ I’m glad I live in the “less enlightened” middle of the country.
By the way, who among us hasn’t pissed out the office window?
“I understand that some things are more offensive to others. However, if an image is offensive to anyone, in my opinion, it should be removed. Especially when there is an underlying tension felt by a minority group,” one of the African American staffers inside UTA emailed me.
I whole-heartedly agree with this. Hollywood has been progressive in some ways, but in other ways, it has been horribly racist and backward to non-white people. What a shame.
Are you kidding me? African-American employees find this photograph uncomfortable or offensive? Please! Someone PLEASE explain how this is considered derogatory to blacks. I truly want to understand. Further, the statement that “…if an image is offensive to anyone, in my opinion, it should be removed.” Go fuck yourself! How’s that for offensive? All of this uber-PC shit is offensive to me. Perhaps you should remove yourself altogether. To be clear – I am not nor have I ever been an employee of UTA. I have no business with UTA. But this is ridiculous.
Photo is not offensive at all, but it is strange to hang it at an agency. Did he just put up this one photo or more from that photographer?
This sounds like the Dallas city council member who objected to the use of the term “black hole” to describe where the city’s money was going. He demanded an apology from the other councilor for using such a “racially insensitive term.” An argument ensued with the councilor trying to explain that it was a scientific term while other councilors shouted that it should be called a “white hole!”
Other examples of such ignorance have been when people and newspapers have used the word niggardly or tar-baby, again in describing economic or political situations, and people have objected to the use of these supposedly racist terms. Niggardly actually comes from the Norwegian verb “to niggle,” not from the Latin/Spanish derivation for the common racial slur, and tar-baby refers to the Br’er Rabbit story about a kind of Trojan Horse made out of tar, and again having nothing to do with racial connotations with the exception that tar is black.
I really don’t see anything racial in the picture of the man and his pet monkey, even without any caption explaining its history. This PC movement has gone so far that race is being read into everything, to the point that you can’t criticize anyone who’s black because that’s racism, to eliminating American Indian names from teams and geographical locations for fear of offending someone. It’s crazy! That why most offices go with abstract paintings and generic pictures of flowers in their offices, as to not offend anyone.
UTA should worry more about their offices falling apart than the photos. Their building — at least, in comparison to Endeavor & CAA — is, let’s face it, ass.
“… if an image is offensive to anyone, in my opinion, it should be removed…”
If that is not censorship, I do not know what is.
But who are we kidding, by “anyone”, the writer of course just means “me” or somebody who thinks exactly like me, and because they can tick one or more of the minority boxes and threaten to get Al Sharpton and his megaphone to the front door, nobody will dare call them out in it.
This picture is not derogatory towards African-Americans whatsoever! It is however, derogatory towards monkeys! Somebody needs to stand up for monkey rights!
liberalism run amok. Art is not art when minorities don’t think it is. Let’s start burning books!!
Wow! what a load of PC crap. That is a very powerful picture.
Does that mean that if someone wants to hang a picture with Africans it must be in a suit and tie?
At the end of the day, if the ONLY imagery of black people at UTA is a picture of a destitute black man holding a monkey (and it is, let me assure you) then as a black woman I would be offended. Its not like there is an abundance of diversity at the place (or any agency for that matter) to begin with. It is also not an art gallery filled with varied pieces with explanation. Its not appropriate. If there was a picture of a sick looking destitute Jewish person holding a monkey place on the wall the whole building would have been up in smoke right now — and you KNOW that’s the truth!!!
Let’s face it, in many corporate agency environments there’s an insensitive, unevolved, “frat boy” element that rationalizes any poor behavior as being “funny.” As art/photos are open to interpretation, I could easily see someone trying to be “funny” or “cleverm,” and instead, making an insulting comment toward a black (white, whoever, etc.) colleague who doesn’t appreciate racial humor. If I owned a business, I would NEVER want to put ANY of my employees in a potentially uncomfortable position. Why was it so hard for UTA to see that that’s what they were doing?
Generally, he sounds like a real ‘gent’.
I’m just happy that today Nikki taught Hollywood’s younger generation that Zimmer used to “urinate out the window.” HAHA, this made my day.
Truly amazing the immature, naive, racist people who have posting asking why this photo is racist. Obviously they don’t live in the real world like many of us who sadly still see racism at its worst. Turn on any news channel and you will hear the stories of our politicans still making racist remarks. Go to Beverly Hills and hear the racist comments these so called “Boy agents call the waiters and valet guys and so on. People who have no clue why this photo is offensive are living in a bubble and just “don’t get it.” Just like men who didn’t understand why sexual harrassement was against the law are the same ones crying and complaining what is wrong with this photo. I’m sure their moms would be proud.
This is ridiculous. WTF??? If you find that photo offensive, get the hell out of the entertainment industry. Morons.
The few idiots that are angry in defense of “PC” didn’t read your posting correctly. You don’t understand this to be a powerful photo until you get the “IDENTIFIER”. I’ve seen the same images minus the monkey on a Unicef box. It is that time of year again. The photo was hung w/o an identifier. So yes I can see where a indigent african boy chained to a clothed monkey (with America’s racist history)might be offensive at the work place. A white female UTA agent told me she was pissed 2 weeks ago when it went up that it was offensive to a slew of staff not just the “collective employees of color”. I hear Zimmer puts up an offensive photo every year. Fact is Zimmer is an equal opportunity offensive employer. If you want hang offensive/powerful work, do it at a gallery, not the office.
I, like many of us, dislike Zimmer with a passion. The photo, however, is cool, and maybe a bit provacative for the workplace. If Zimmer were lucky enough to have Michelle Obama come and speak to the staff about being better people, would they let her stand in front of it while she addressed today’s entertainment leaders? Would they let her walk by it? Would they even let her in that dated hole, or would they take her to Brentwood? One will never know..
Liberal racism! The Democratic party, the party of racism. What party has an ex-member of the KKK as their ranking Senator? The Democratic Party. Robert Byrd!
All the people saying they don’t think this picture is racist are correct. It’s not. These types of scenes are popular in African society today.
All the people saying this picture IS racist are also correct.
You can take the most innocuous of words, attitudes or pictures and apply them in a snide way, and make a very different result.
Like in law, there are policies that are “on the face” not racist, but that actually have a racist result or impact. In such cases the courts will strike down that law.
If you’ve got a hold of somebody’s hand and you’re applying pressure, and that person is saying, “Ow, you’re hurting me,” you shouldn’t say, “What this itty bitty amount of pressure? Come on,” and expect people to think you’re not being an asshole.
When I look at the picture, my first question is “why is this hanging at a talent agency?” Then, as I think more about the message of the image, a couple more thoughts come to mind.
1. Does the monkey symbolize the agency and the man symbolizes the talent. The agency and the talent are “unified”. Hmmm? UNITED. TALENT.
2. The monkey and the man are dressed in similar outfits. There was a time in our country when it was common to degrade a black person by comparing them to primates. It was blatant racism. (Google it.) So, for an image to have a man of African descent CHAINED to a primate recalls the inhumane legacy of the slave-trade, dehumanizing treatment of people of African-descent in our country and the crippling effects that racism has had on our country’s growth.
Finally, in my opinion as a human being, a woman, a black person and an American, to hang this particular picture at a Beverly Hills talent agency is inappropriate and in poor taste. It deserves a proper place to be displayed to spark discussion.
I have more to say, but, I will save the non-PC commentary for a more private conversation.
…and then people wonder why this country is so…well, you can fill in the blank.
Let’s just say, simply because Will Smith is one of the most powerful people in Hollywood and this (otherwise) great nation is poised to elect to its highest elective office a person of ‘color’, that those achievements do not erase the 200+ years of racial inequality. As another poster pointed out, if it was an impoverished Jewish person with an animal, then it is doubtful it would have been hung in UTA’s general hallways.
Sure, you can make the valid argument that one persons art is anothers trash. Likewise, the protections under the 1st Amendment is what allows Zimmer to make an ass of himself on a daily basis…and the rest of us, to comment freely without being thrown in jail and/or otherwise censored. This is what makes this nation unique among her peers.
Zimmer’s biggest mistake is the fact he DIDN’T ask the staff in general, and I’m not suggesting he take a poll first, their opinions on displaying such an innately provocative piece of art. If he had the sensitivity and smarts to at least hear the opinions of others, or even have a general discussion about ‘art in the workplace’, he wouldn’t look like a wealthy jerkoff so much of the time (but then, he is only an agent — luckily for America, not a statesman).
In fact, this incident reminds me of how Fox News and the Right in general, got so ‘angry’ over the words of Rev. Wright. Last I checked, there’s PLENTY of reasons for a minority to be angry at this country; Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Segregation, Amos & Andy, et cetera. I hate to break it to the ‘white majority’ in this country, but yes, blacks and other minorities have a few ‘grudges’ and it’ll take more than Halle and Denzel getting an Academy Award to smooth things over.
Art is supposed to push the limits of what we’re comfortable with, it’s supposed to make us think and make us feel. It pushes us and challenges us and makes us better. We all agree on that. That’s why this incident is so strange. Mr. Zimmer’s employees should be grateful that he put up real, authentic art in his office. Calling this piece racist shows a basic lack of creative thought on the accusers’ part. It shows a simplemindedness and insults all those who have been the victim of real, hateful racism.
As a Jew I don’t like non-Jews telling me what is or is not anti-semitic. I know it. Likewise I respect other minority group’s opinions on what makes them uncomfortable.
Rather than commenting on UTA’s PC behavior or lack-of-PC behavior as shown by this display, perhaps one should look at the number of African American (aka black) agents employed inside the building. Last I checked, there was not one black partner at UTA (nor Endeavor, CAA, WMA or ICM). You can count the black agents in hollywood on one hand, i believe.
Perhaps the facts are more telling than the images. And, broadening out your agent roster might help you keep Martin Lawrence, sign Tyra Banks, or develop the next Spike Lee …
While the racist subtext of this piece may be up for debate, it is entirely inappropriate for an office space — especially for a company so lacking in diversity. Unless I’m mistaken, the African American population inside of UTA is limited to 2 trainees and 1 or 2 receptionists. I’m sure that Michael Conway took time out of his “busy” schedule to ensure they are now comfortable. More likely they were told to appreciate the $11.25 an hr they earn and stop complaining.
bottom line: what’s appropriate for an art gallery may not be appropriate for a workplace. If I encounter an image that I find personally offensive at an art gallery, I can walk on by. If that image is put in front of my desk at work – different story.
This has nothing to do with censorship, just decency.
The employees of color are a little slow on the uptake if they think this photograph is what makes them feel
“uncomfortable and unwelcome”. They might check their pay envelopes.
For people in a creative biz, what insensitivity. This may be ‘high art’ and frankly it is interestingly provocative. But in the lobby of a major agency? U mean Zimmer can’t find something creative and less provoking? Everyone mocks CAA’s lobby but at least it won’t offend anyone.
RE: Dan Zee
Forgive me for invoking Goldwyn’s Law but…
Native American team names (where the “Indians” are not associated personally with the team) are ABSOLUTELY offensive.
It’s like if Germany won WWII and then named their Soccer team “The Auschwitz Heebs.”
Our forefathers committed a genocide of 10 MILLION human beings. To even compare it to Nazism is to insult Nazi’s. And then we make sports teams where the logo is little more than a cheap imitation of WWII anti-”Jap” propaganda.
And you’re indignant because…why?
Freedom of expression – increasingly – only means freedom to express opinions that will not offend. Welcome to the future.
Hey, I’m a liberal and I don’t see the picture as racist in any way. But I’m also white. So even if I don’t understand the offense, and even if I disagree that it is an offense, I do care to hear the reasons and discuss it. Maybe it should come down. Maybe it should stay up.
One thing is certain, that photo probably should be in a museum not at an agency.
I’m not sure if you so-called ‘anti p.c’ people get it – it’s not what the photo depicts, but the motifs behind what the photo depicts. It is not the fact that UTA has an image depicting people of African descent – but that the photo in question offends people of African descent. And people should be able to feel safe and welcome in their working environment. Put yourself in their shoes – if you were intensely offended by something at your place of employment, would you want something done about it? Of course you would!
I wish that more people would stop bothering to call themselves ‘anti p.c’ when all they are is cowardly, racist scum. I’m not accusing all you ‘anti p.c’ people as being racist – but to the ‘anti-pc’ people on this forum who can’t emphasise with other human beings who clearly are distressed by a hostile work space, then maybe you should admit it – you’re a racist.
True, tis a powerful picture, but don’t think that a talent agency is the smartest place to display this image. Imagine what would happen if some enlightened genius hung a portrait of Hitler in the lobby? I’m sure most of you open minded ass wipes who can’t possibly fathom how anyone could see any subtext in the monkey pic would be screaming about the suffering of the Jews. Hollywood: Land of the self-absorbed hypocrites.
“However, if an image is offensive to anyone, in my opinion, it should be removed.”
This principle wraps up the PC movement succintly.
This means that it would be easy to insure no images of any type are ever posted in this company. Just go to HR, and tell them that “every” image is offensive. There seems to be no requirement to explain WHY the images are offensive. That’s what is great about PC!
You know, I don’t find the photo to be offensive either… but I’m not African American. But given the entire ration of shit that our country has given African Americans – slavery, lynchings, abuse, and continued discrimination to this day – I’m personally gonna be big enough to say, “you know what, if that makes you uncomfortable I’ll take it down because it obviously hurts you and it really doesn’t buy me much in exchange.”
Is that such a problem for you guys? Really? Do you think they are pretending to be offended just to test your rights of free speech? Or do you actually believe that they uncomfortable and just want to tell them to fuck themselves because you feel that your right to hang a picture you don’t really give two shits about is that much more important than their right to feel good about the place they go to work every day?
You might be well within your rights to say leave the photo up, but you have to recognize that the response is both petty and uncharitable.
Could you imagine Jewish people at the old AMG protesting if Ovitz put up a photo of a little old Jewish lady in Miami holding a dog on a leash?
That would be insanely ridiculous, wouldn’t it.
The people at UTA who protested the photo are more chained by their fears then that poor monkey.
Maybe this is more representative of Zimmer’s thoughts about the agent/client relationship rather than race. Maybe that’s why it was hung up publicly, as if it were UTA’s mission statement. After all, couldn’t “men and the relationships they have with the animals they have tamed” be applicable to the attitudes of any number of agents in this town? Sure, it’s easy to play the race card (and I understand the sensitivity), but this may be more reflective of a general attitude Mr. Zimmer maintains toward the creative community as a whole. He’s the organ grinder; the rest of us are just the organ.
Dear Hollywood,
I’m shocked, SHOCKED!
This sort of thing cannot be tolerated in this day of Fascist Democrats and Socialist Republicans.
Just at a glance, I can see that there are at least 18,792 instances of bias, prejudice, sexual content, social injustice, inane commentary and lack of tact.
1) Sexual: Is that animal fondling itself? Is it attempting to fondle that young man? This would NEVER happen in Hollywadd and should not be tolerated here.
2) Animal: Has PETA been notified about this animal being on a chain? Monkey abuse!
3) Human: Why is this young man not smiling. He’s having his picture taken by a famous photographer. Arrest him for sulking.
4) Safety: Does that bench meet safety standards? Why isn’t it painted? Who’s the interior decorator around here?
5) City Standards:Is that chain plastic-coated? If not, there could be a noise violation issue.
6) Photographic: Who cropped this photo? Could this be a CG shot done to upset people?
I could go on, but too many on this blog would not respect my un-PC remarks.
In regards to your comment about the urination habits of Mr. Zimmer. The fact that Mr. Zimmer is a potential member of Unrestrained Urinators International has nothing to do with this photo. We, who write with pee, be it in the snow, out the window, off the porch or into the lake, do so with pride and good aim. Tact not included.
I trust that this pisses off everyone.
Like many others here, I find it sad that anyone could find such an image offensive, much less offensive enough to complain about it.
hey jeremy…if i were you i’d fire anyone that complained about discomfort from that photograph. THey are obviously non agent material. First, they don’t recognize brilliant artistry, and secondly forget about color of skin, they DONT have the right thickness of skin to survive long term in the world of talent representation. If a mere image of slavery scares someone, then they had better quit now than continue on a path of which is ONLY about ruthless servitude for above standard compensation.
GO UTA! your the best of the worst…..
That is a powerful photograph which to my eye has no racial tones whatsoever. But, get ready for racial hypersensitivity when Obama wins.
I am black, but the photo is not racist. I like stuff like this. Something I would buy. But why on earth this is hanging in a Talent Agency is beyond me. If was an employee and saw this hanging it would give me pause. Very very out of place.
That picture is remarkable! It should not have needed a pedigree for its beauty to resonant! Sheez you can see their friendship. And I bet a monkey helps out around the house way more than a cat or dog.
Come on my black people at UTA. Realistically if the portrayal of African peoples in art and media is something you really value…you need a new job anyway. Seriously – this knee jerk reaction is more about Black Self Loathing than a picture of a man and his pet.
The picture in itself is not racist – it is photojournalism and/or art.
To hang it in the agency is not necessarily racist. Although not knowing Zimmer’s personal views, it could be racist – that is part of the danger. Did Zimmer think the picture was funny? Probably not, he probably thought it was a provocative thought piece, but you can’t be sure.
To hang it in the agency was, however, a blatant disrespect for the comfort level of ALL employees and understandably offensive in a place where there is a clear minority both in staff and clients. Plus, why should anyone of any color have to go to work and see it – it belongs in a gallery not a workplace.
And it should be understandable to anyone of any color how seeing a destitute black person attached to a chain could be objectionable to black people – if you can’t see it – you’re being a jackass and need to learn about empathy. Saying you are liberal and don’t have a problem with this picture is probably your way of saying you are white and upper middle class and went to Brown and you don’t think racism is a problem in America because you’ve always had black friends. Racism still exists in America, and it still informs many people’s lives, so it is an issue that comes into these images.
The Jewish picture analogies have all been off. This isn’t Hitler or an old lady in Mimai with a dog. This is more like two emaciated concentration camp survivors. Perhaps a compelling piece of photojournalism – but would any Jew or anybody want to look at that everyday on the way to their desk?
Also, sports teams with Native American names or logos IS racially offensive. Fake dances and songs that pretend to be religious and sacred dances and stylized cartoon depictions of a Native American used by people who have NO respect for the native culture for marketing purposes is offensive. As is the phrase “Indian giver”, and calling someone a “squaw”. Native American protesters of the Illinois team that has a white man dress in an Native chief’s outfit and do a fake dance before games were spat on by fans of that team entering the game. SPAT ON. But I’m sure they respect proud native people, and that is why they have a Native American as their mascot, not because it is “fun” for them.
This all comes from someone who has no proplems with images of the virgin Mary depicted in elephant dung, and yet I can see how that could upset some people and wouldn’t hang it in my place of business.
Also, I’m inclined to think many actors would be offended by this picture as it’s context within the agency could be easily interpreted as a comment on the agent/actor relationship – although I’ll let agents and actors fight about whether they are the monkey or the poor black “boy”.
It was a dumb move and an inappropriate for the workplace — in a TALENT AGENCY IN HOLLYWOOD? I mean WTF? Zimmer wants to make a statement, let him write a check for the poor guy. As a partner and leader, he should have simply removed it and placed it in his office and poor Nikki could have used this space to talk about something of real value instead of this guy’s poor choice and a disgusting habit.
Also, it’s all about context. That image is powerful and moving, IN CONTEXT. Out of context, it is awkward and a bit creepy. By placing it without the other images in the series, you lose the meaning.
The image stays static, but the connotation is absolutely different.
This is also true of how we are viewing it here. We have been told “this is deemed offensive” before we even see it. And, when we do see it, we are stripped of the context in which it was hanged. Is it a 6-foot tall image? It is a 2-foot tall image? What is surrounding it? All of these things matter.
So, from here we cannot properly judge the appropriateness of this image.
In my personal experience, I ADORE the photography of Larry Clark. However, I would never put up a still from his seminal TEENAGE LUST in an office setting. There is not a single image in that book that makes sense without all the others.
In my mind, this is a similar case.
One of my former bosses complained to human resources and tried to get me fired over a photo on my wall of me and a number of other writers on the bow the reconstructed Amistad. He said the photo was a not so subtle statement saying that he treated me as a slave. He was a bully boss. But, the Amistad is a major part of history and to get a chance to sail on it wasn’t something that anyone I know of any ethnicity would refuse. In any case, Human Resources told my boss that he was out of line for even making the complaint. But, that just made him treat me worse. So, I guess the photograph was important to both of us, just in different ways.
I am an African American woman and I can look at that photo and see a work of art that is not in and of itself racist. It would not bother me personally to see it anywhere. But context is everything. It is laughable to claim not to understand the racial context in which that photo may be viewed when all over the internet and on the news this weekend we were all treated to the video of the McCain/Palin supporter who brought his “Obama” monkey to the McCain/Palin rally. I bet everyone posting here understood that message, regardless of their purported “PC” or “not-PC” political stripe. In addition, Hollywood has a long history of lecturing the rest of the world about racial progress while failing to live up to those standards itself.
So, yes, the photo is not racist. But, yes, because of the historical context of this country, in which blacks are viewed in many parts of the this country, from the middle of the country, to the big, segregated cities, to parts of Hollywood itself, as less than human and closer to other primates than to other humans, the context in which the photo was displayed, may be racist. Only people who actually work at UTA know for sure. I don’t.
Of course it’s racist. A white man owns it. All caucasoids are racist. ALL. There are no exceptions.
Hey, I didn’t spend endless hours watching MTV programming without learning things:
All whites are racist.
A man having anal sex with another man is awesome.
Acid-bathing a pre-born child (50 % of whom are female) in order to facilitate an abortion is an act of Herculean compassion.
Always take notes when watching MTV.
Have a day.
Rain
If I attend an NAACP convention and refer to other attendees as “colored,” will they be offended?
Another thing on that… it is one thing to say, “if you are offended then you just have to deal,” but to say, “you shouldn’t be offended,” is just plain dumb. How can you possibly presume to tell someone what feelings are valid?
Issues of race, class, and the relevance of art to
modern corporate culture, it’s not a monkey. It’s a
baboon.
Who says that photo is art? It doesn’t look like anything special to me. Nor do I find it offensive (I am Black), just boring. We all have our ideas of what is art and what is offensive which is as it should be. If according to monkey, art is meant to push boundaries, then apparently it worked. But why someone would want to potentially provoke a negative response(speaking hypothetically, because I don’t know Zimmer) from their employees is a mystery to me. People are already stessed out on the job as it is in this economy.
Considering how offensive this industry has become in general, grousing about a photograph on the wall of an agency is sort of like worrying that there’s a bathtub running on the Titanic.
Racist? HOW? Give me an effing break. I think people do themselves a disservice when they’re overly touchy and don’t think things through before crying racism. People are less apt to respond to real racism later on (It’s like the boy who cried wolf.)
Zimmer’s charater flaws aside, this is a PHOTOGRAPH OF REAL LIFE. And what’s racist about it??? You’re not alowed to hang photos of Africans? Are they off limits? I have plenty of photos of life in Africa that I have taken myself. Am I racist? I’m a BLACK American.
Instead of worrying about their hurt feelings, maybe these UTA employees “of color” ought to get off their overpaid butts and take a trip to Africa or do something for less privileged people in South LA. Put some of that indignant energy to good use…