India vogue August 2008 controversial pictures

what is this about?

... about tarty 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 middle classes probably never associate poverty with politics. They probably think it's natural, like rain.


SHAR WAH! said...

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.

Miranda said...
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.