> > I've seen the photoshoot [in the actual magazine] and did find it > problematic, but not singular. Small-town, attractively-unattractive > aspiration-oriented India is all over advertising. There is probably a > sizable monograph to be written on the varieties of Plucky Girls From The > Hinterland who are put on display in telly ads to hawk telecom services > alone.
What, specifically, did you find problematic? To be honest, I find absolutely nothing wrong with aspiration-oriented advertising. This photoshoot, if anything, fails to make its point because of the obvious financial disparities involved. Most of the other ads we see about small-town-kid-makes-it-big stories are within realistic reach; the day any Indian villager can buy Gucci or McQueen products is several decades away. I did think the photos were appallingly defended in the NYT piece by the > magazine's editor. It's *not* about fun. It *is* about commerce, the way > most art is, and most bad art very overtly is. Can art not be about both fun and commerce? Yes, everybody would like to sell a few more Gucci bags and Burberry umbrellas, but surely there's something to be said for the photographer who gets to grin and say "Gotcha!". -- Sumant Srivathsan http://sumants.blogspot.com
