*What, specifically, did you find problematic? * The anonymity of the subjects [to be fair, fashion mags often do keep the names of models in shoots anon, but I dislike the practice, and it seems more intolerable in cases where models aren't pros, like here] and didn't think there was any effective engagement between subjects and products - the urban-rural gap in the photos the NYT picked out [there are actually some urban/suburban shots as well] stirred me mainly for being ineffectual, as you said. Aspiration-oriented advertising does bother me in several cases - but if I were to complain about the illusions of empowerment driven by marketing I would be demonstrating how completely I've missed the point of the whole industry, yes?
No arguments with the fact that art can be about fun as well as moolah -- but I didn't think 'lighten up, fashion is about fun!' held up well in a real argument about those pictures. Not germane [and perhaps worse, not even actually funny]. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Sumant Srivathsan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > 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 > -- Doo-bop.
