Comments on: Look Who We Have Coming to Vogue

By: d

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:25:08 +0000

Call it shallow, call it exploitative, call it tasteless. All true. Sad fact is, its probably one of the most talked about fashion shoots in recent times, generating much debate and newsprint. I am sure the Vogue art director or whoever thought this up has got himself/herself a raise!

By: shweta

shweta — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:11:28 +0000

with due respect (or the lack of it) to vogue’s india editor…not only was that a very shallow statement but an extremely stupid one. its like mumbai models ONLY buying designer X’s designer bags kyunki har bag ki sale se 1 paisa charity ko jayega and desh ka utthan hoga. so the baby whose family probably struggles to make $100 in a month can wear and carry off a Fendi bib just like a Manhattan biggie’s bundle of delight…here’s to shallowness personified

By: Anindita Sengupta

Anindita Sengupta — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:28:56 +0000

Small Talk: Not a bigger deal than the things you mentioned but in my opinion, neither are ninety percent of the other things we talk about in the blogosphere. It caught my eye–and my mind. That’s all.

By: Small Talk

Small Talk — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:50:36 +0000

? It really is that big a deal? Bigger than the existence of a 100 rupee magazine in a country where millions earn half that in a day? Bigger than all those other causes worth some blogosphere time and space?

By: Anindita Sengupta

Anindita Sengupta — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:45:46 +0000

Becky: yes, unfortunately.

nits: “some art director somewhere fancying this to be more than a fashion shoot”…i was thinking about this today at some point while stuck at a traffic signal and wondering if some guy actually thought he was doing his bit to promote social consciousness. I mean, if the intention was there (misplaced and stupidly done as it may be), I feel a little bit sorry for him. The shoot is hateworthy though.

Priyanka: Yes, fancy dress / play acting does seem to be a strong element here. Which is what is disturbing, I think — the fact that it’s a bit like a curiosity show. And if that’s the message, that’s really quite awful. We find newer ways of using the poor every day.

OJ: “There’s a fine, often unnoticed, line between creative expression and exploitation and people CHOOSE to overlook it.” I agree with you and am always wondering about this myself. I think what makes it harder though in this case is that it’s not just about creative expression but also about consumer appeal. And the consumer being at the opposite end of the spectrum of those being used for the appeal.

iconoplastic: Yes, I’m really curious too about whether they paid the models the regular rates. The fact that Priya Tanna / their PR statement said nothing about providing earning opportunities for the models is a little suspicious. I’ve been in PR and it’s the first line of defence the company could have taken. The fact that they haven’t means what? That they didn’t pay them enough?

By: iconoplastic

iconoplastic — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:03:54 +0000

I wonder if they spared as much dosh as they would for Gisele(or any bronzed Brazillian).
Then of course, they are selling pickled cows as art pieces and amassing enough money to equal East Timor’s GDP in the process even as millions go without any sign or semblance of reall food. Creativity has never been “looser”. It seems like a terrible downward spiral.
Btw..Hurray for us! We may be bombed, torn apart, jumping potholes the size of Grand Canyon, getting openly molested on the streets, facing generally a serious amount of hell on earth but at least our poor get a Vogue centrespread.
More power to Wintour’s tribe! Ha.

By: OrangeJammies

OrangeJammies — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:31:13 +0000

I’m disgusted but not surprised. There’s a fine, often unnoticed, line between creative expression and exploitation and people CHOOSE to overlook it. But then again, I wonder: if the ‘models’ got money and instant gratification from it (however little it may have been), how justified am I in objecting to it? (Not that it’s going to stop me from ranting, of course. I’m already on my high horse and trotting.)

By: Priyanka

Priyanka — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:13 +0000

I concur with many of the sentiments expressed above and also find it disturbing that this photo-feature was part of the Vogue issue that was ostensibly celebrating Indian Independence! I was also curious to know about the manner in which this feature was conducted. How were the models approached? How did they perceive their participation in the shoot? While examining the images, there seems to be a sense of fancy-dress at play for both the models and the ones ‘dressing’ them up. What message is the magazine attempting to communicate to its readers while using nameless and in some cases, faceless models? We are more likely to notice and appreciate a Hermes Birkin bag or Alexander McQueen belt when worn/used by them, rather than the Preity Zintas, whose persona is too overwhelming for the featured products in question?

By: nits

nits — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:37:32 +0000

Hi Anu – long time, hope you are well. I hate this shoot. I know this has been making the rounds in the blogs since the article came out and those that say this is “thought-provoking” are unfortunately falling for Vogue’s spin on it. It’s disgusting to me. Although I don’t fully commit to the “medium is the message” axiom, in this case how can it not hold true? Knowing Vogue’s raison d’etre (sell luxury products) and audience (billionares and billionaire wanna-bes), who exactly are they enlightening? It’s just the middle class (if at all) that’s enraged on the sidelines and some art director somewhere fancying this to be more than a fashion shoot.
Either way it makes me sick.

By: Becky

Becky — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:32:22 +0000

Totally cringeworthy…

By: Anindita Sengupta

Anindita Sengupta — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:33:22 +0000

Sharanya: Yes, it did remind me of that too. Except that I find the nameless, wordless quality of the people in these photos is more repugnant. If you’re going to use people as models in a crass and insensitive ad campaign, a least give them the respect of treating them like regular models, which means name them. It sort of underlines the fact that they are being viewed more as curiousities than anything else.

Luiza: Yes, that’s what makes the so-called political stance mouthed by the editor very hollow. How many people, let alone people in the lower income bracket such as those who have been featured, can afford a 8000 rupee bag? I mean, it’s fine that it exists and that some people are buying. But to pretend it’s anything other than an elitist item aimed at a select class of people is laughable.

By: Luiza

Luiza — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:32:25 +0000

It’s very typical for western fashion magazines to publish shoots in which white, shiny, blonde, leggy models are pictured looking god-like next to poor ethnic minorities – which is bad enough – but this went even further. It’s embarrassing. The editor says “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege” – but none of these people would be able to afford to buy into this kind of fashion. And why do they need to wear Hermes or Dolce and Gabbana to prove they’re beautiful? She chose her words very badly…

By: Sharanya Manivannan

Sharanya Manivannan — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:38:00 +0000

Do you remember the cover of their first issue and the ruckus it created? Personally, I quite like Vogue India, as far as magazines go. But I don’t think their glossing over of shady political statements (and they ARE statements — I think all of us who work in media and advertising know just how much thought goes into every photoshoot) is very respectable. It’s possible to be controversial and groundbreaking without having to resort to insensitivities. This kind of reminds me of that scavenger-models incident, actually.

By: Anindita Sengupta

Anindita Sengupta — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:51:08 +0000

iz: aww, thank you!

Space Bar: My question exactly. Somehow, I doubt it. With this one, I get the feeling someone at creative thought this was a cool idea, different and eye-catching. They don’t even seem to have their do-gooder spiel fine-tuned. Bizarre.

By: Space Bar

Space Bar — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:13:35 +0000

Hmm. Did they get paid as much as any other cover model would have done?

(And if the average Indian is as dentally handicapped as the article says, perhaps they need to model something else.)

I think these kinds of covers are exploitative. Nobody really believes the product is made more attractive by being modeled by the aam aadmi; someone somewhere is getting a do-gooder glow from it and they’re the only ones benefitting.