A 16-page photoshoot illustrating the juxtaposition of extreme poverty and wealth in India by styling designer high fashion accessories not on runway models, but on the average Indian people with their every day settings as the backdrop.
An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib. (approx. £50)
A man barefoot modeled a Burberry umbrella: (approx. £100)The concept of this shoot seems obviously ironic as these people who's average salary is 65 pence per day would not be able to afford such luxuries. While the photography may be beautifully shot and aesthetically pleasing, what is Vogue India trying to say with these images?
Editor Priya Tanna said....
"For our India issue we wanted to showcase beautiful objects of fashion in an interesting and engaging context. We saw immense beauty, innocence, and freshness in the faces of the people we captured. This was a creative pursuit that we consider one of our most beautiful editorial executions. Why would people see it any other way?"
Do you think Vogue have gone a step too far?
OR
Is this simply a celebration of the average Indian people in their natural environment?
Thoughts.....
16 comments:
Well, i think if i earnt 65p a day, or whatever, and struggled to feed my family, i wouldn't be best pleased to be used as part for "an interesting and engaging context" for those who have enough income to spend on fashion items.
However, on the other hand, the photos are effective in that they look good and have got people talking (as in your post on this blog, and my response). Who's to say that fashion photography has to have ethical boundaries? Although they initially appear distasteful, are these pictures actually causing any harm?
taking the piss. it's just another way the rich/middle class/western world/etc are entertaining themselves...instead of sticking a fucking Fendi bib on that child give the £65 to the family which will no doubt feed that family for a while. this whole artsy/new approach to fashion photgraphy is bullshit...they wasted their money flying over there just so they could stick people in poverty who do not have the luxury of basic neccessities such as clean water in what 'our' side of the world is obessessed with i.e consumerism. it's Vogue's attempt to fool people into thinking they give a shit and are conscious /care for what is actually happening in the world..arrrgghhhhh im sooooo annoyed at this piece....so very annoyed that Im going to now stop typing as I will carry on my rant...so in a nutshell..Vogue just stick to photographs of stick thin white girls/boys modellinover priced/over hyped clothing.
I think it's a genius idea! Thought, provoking, beautiful and highly original. I doubt the photographer was 'avin a laff when the decision was made for the shoot. At the end of the day, it's an accurate reflection of the world we live in. The toffs that find it controversial are just uncomfortable with what the images symbolise. I on the other hand am not uncomfortable because my parents originate from countries which are in similar states to India. I do my piece for them (protest, fundraise and generally keep it real, etc) but still embrace consumerism and high fashion as I am fortunate enough to be able to.
Great Post! Keep it up x
Wicked post... i think the spread is really original and quite brave of Vogue India (i didnt even know India had a vogue!) to highlight the massive gap between the extremely ballin and the deeply gutter folks!
Nice one
Thanks for your insightful comments, good seeing what you have to say...
I personally find the whole thing distasteful. If the Editor's intentions would have been to highlight the growing wealth of the middle classes in contrast to the extreme poverty that still remains in India, then that would be a different matter. It would have been the perfect opportunity to raise awareness and appeal for aid as well as selling product.
However the way she described what they were doing made me feel a bit sick. Vogue would have paid these models much less than professionals. I think the photographs are quite beautiful but the approach was all wrong.
Maybe brave but not considered.
TT
xx
I think that fashion is fashion and art is art. If these people didn't ant to have thier picture taken they didn't have to. This is what the pictures were probally suppost to do.... Well done i say =)
The photos are beautiful and it's nice to see Vogue doing something they don't include in their magazine every month. Some people are loaded and dress immaculately in head-to-toe high end designers. Some people just buy a new designer bag once a season. Some people earn 65p a day. That's life and it's just shitty. I agree with those suggesting that this shoot was not published with the intention of being 'holier-than-thou'.
Think Vogue should stick to usual, same-ol'-same-ol', safe, inoffensive, tired studio shoots? Maybe just keep buying 'Hello' magazine.
Don't like it.. It's like ignorant rich fashion people who have it all, amusing themselves on the behalf of less fortunate people who maybe dosn't really know what their photoes are being used for! The photoes is being used for marketing and to make money, money witch I doubt the "models" will ever see! Tasteless! And what a silly ignorant comment made by the editor Tanna!?
Sorry , but thats how I see it!
i wonder if they got to keep the garms :)
This is a great post. It is a bold step being taken by Vogue India, i guess, but i think it is a reflection of the shallowness and callous nature of the world we live in, I find it very distasteful to exploit the absolute poverty of these people by using them to showcase objects which are irrelevant when you live on 65p a day. Although the pictures may be beautifully shot. The make me feel a a bit sick and uncomfortable. Poverty is not and will never be fashionable.....
What can vogue do really that people will not in some way or other moan at? They have skinny models and thats seen as wrong. Then they put a bit of meat on them, then the clothes don't look correct. They include highstreet stores (dorethy perkins) and this 'isn't vogues look' now this. People just love to have a good moan, the pictures are beautiful, they look happy to be doing it leave them be
well the people got paid for what they did and mroe more than 65p, and i agree aslthough they seem distastful they really arnt.
anyone that's been to india knows that after you leave a city like Calcutta you leave everything behind because the stench of shit from the raw sewage in the streets clings to your clothes and anything you bring back with you for ages, the sight of the street kids begging instead of being in school is one that stays with you, the orphanage that overflows with unwanted children with disabilities seems to grow bigger every year we volunteer there..these photos are distasteful
what is this about?
...unrepressed pleasure with pink overtones and a certain nausea, like after swallowing 1 lt of vanilla icecream; all topped up with lamentations for having bought the damn thing instead of offering the money to Oxfam.
... ultra lib capitalism applied to India will surely have more to it than the despicable sticking of haute-couture stuff on poor people for pics and fun. Oh yeah, anything can be fun, Nero burned Rome and Caligula was poking peoples' eyes. Don't we keep hearing about slave factories with underage workers or something?
What I suspect is that the privileged (Indian) classes probably never associate poverty with politics. They must think it's natural, like rain.
hmmm, FYI, Vogue as been going to third world countries for more than 50 years to juxtapose high fashion with poverty life. If you look at old American Vogues (they had bigger budgets) you see the famous models of the day hanging out in Africa and India (thought cool as they were British Colonies) mixing with the "locals" Although I dont agree its not really new. And this particular style of shooting - designer goods actually ON locals - is something that W does regularly with art photographers (like Philip Lorca diCorcia in Cairo, Bruce Weber in poor areas of Detroit etc) and Pop Magazine does with Alice Hawkins and Sam Willoughby styling. Its not that shocking and its not that controversial. Its an area of fashion editorial that is regularly explored.
you are right shar wah!
and what you describe can vary from some sort of "nostalgia" for the natural and authentic, to pure snobbish celebration of self for consumerist lifestyles, which boil down to the same kitsch. Don't you think?
In short, even though some things are "common practice" it does not mean that it is not necessary to think of them critically everytime in whatever "new" context they manifest.
Post a Comment