Were these men and women who modeled for the shoot actually paid at vogue
rates?
If they were paid what Katrina Kaif or Gisele Bundchen get paid .. maybe we
should campaign for that, eh?
srs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Supriya Nair
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:12 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [silk] Vogue fashionableness
>
> *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.
