Just saw this message. I've been keeping tabs on this story and have noticed the way it's travelled across the papers in the English-speaking developed world - last I checked The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and The International Herald Tribune [who syndicated from NYT] were just some of the major papers talking about it, as well as major fashion/celebrity blogs based in the US like Jezebel.com. Typically, several were reporting the reportage, without having looked at the shoot itself. Is it safe to assume that economic inequality in the developing world is not on the list of things Stuff White People Like, then?
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. 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. Full disclosure: I work with a fashion magazine. Supriya. On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01vogue.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin > (reg required, bugmenot.com works) > > In case any one is reading the NYT story on Vogue, imomus has an > excellent companion analysis. > > http://imomus.livejournal.com/397381.html > > > Cheeni > > -- Doo-bop.
