(Article taken from the The Straits Times on 2nd September 2008)
An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes - who is wearing a Fendi bib retailed at about US$100.
A man models a Burberry umbrella that costs US$200. Approximately 456 million Indians live on $1.25 per day
This article speaks of Vogue India's August edition that presented a 16-page "supple handbags, bejewelled clutches and statues-symbol umbrellas", but with a twist. Instead of well-known models or celebrities who can afford these items doing the honors of modelling them, Vogue had instead chosen to make use of average Indian people who would not be able to afford these items in their lives. (Approximately 456 million Indians live on less than $1.25 a day)
Vogue has thus sparked off debates on these images with skewed visions of India. Many found it "not just tacky but downright distasteful" and even denounced it as an "example of vulgarity". To her critics, Vogue India editor Priya Tanna's message was "Lighten up." She said that Vogue was about realising the power of fashion, and that fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege, that anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful.
When I read this article, I was pretty dumbfounded, and disgusted by how Vogue was exploiting the poor in India. I felt that they had no right to use these people and mock them. What happened to human rights and who allowed these shots to be taken and published? "Fashion is fun, lighten up" the Vogue India editor said. What's so funny about these shots? That they are poor and everyday they struggle to make a living or worry if they have enough food tomorrow?
I really wonder how did they choose the models, and how much they were paid. Were they exploited? I mean, every single cent they get would mean so much to them even if they were paid much lesser than the models or celebrities right? Living on $1.25 a day, I'm sure even if Vogue pays them a measly US$50, that would do the trick in getting them to model for these shots willingly.
What caught my attention most was the captions of the photographs taken. According to the article, "The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects of the photos" says Ms Gahlaut, the columnist. Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions instead, and identifies the sex of the wearer or carrier. Frankly, that was a turn off when I read that these people did not even get recognition even though their faces were placed on the magazine. Are they not like celebrities and models? Are they not human beings as well? They are real people, with feelings and with struggles. Do the things they struggle with make them any less significant then the rich?
Vogue probably thought they were doing both the poor and themselves a favour, by helping the models to earn quick bucks, and saving some cash for themselves. Have they ever thought about their insensitivity towards the poor society in their country and what consequences there may be in future to their nation? It's times like these I think about what the world has evolved to, for the sake of wealth. With little or no one stopping these exploitations that are happening, what will our future hold?
12 comments:
Vogue India editor Priya Tanna's message was "Lighten up."
I can see the meaning behind the ads, even though it is not very tastefully done. Perhaps through these ads, they want to make fashion more accessible to the general audience. The general idea is there, but it could turn some people off, depending on how they perceive the ads.
I personally do not see myself "lightening up" when I see those ads. Instead, I feel a little disturbed. Seriously, living on $1.25 a day is way too little. Vogue India look like they are trivialising the social problems in their country, when they are real problems that needs to be tackled with.
This ad certainly sticks in my mind, since it's done so awfully. Maybe that's the whole point of their ads: to attract so much attention at the risk of negative publicity. Well, they've got it, I think.
(Shameless advertising: please leave a comment at my blog! Thanks so much!!! :) )
When i think of Vogue, i think of.. fashion, lifestyle, colour, prettiness, class.. so on and so forth.
These ads to me, are actually pretty.. ingenuous? if the people used aren't actually the extremely low income Indians.
I'm sorry but i actually do like it! (ok stop throwing things at me!)
However, i would say that I am disturbed that "the magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects of the photos". Do they mean that the Indians are so worthless that they do not even garner a bit of recognition? Or do the Vogue editors think that the Indians should be in fact, THANKFUL to them for giving them a "job".
I do feel it's the latter, but then again,who cares what i think. We took notice of the ads, which is what they want. After all, no publicity is bad publicity.
(ps. my blog would appreciate some comments too! =D haha)
I think we have to approach this issue from the perspective of the editorial team, and their goal of wanting to portray their products as available to the masses. It might be a mockery of India's poor classes, but that's only because the "man in the street" is most likely to live under the international poverty line. Let's not blame the editor's intentions, I personally don't think they're malicious. Just a little insensitive, perhaps.
On the anonymity issue, I'm not sure if it's the norm to name the models in spreads of other fashion publications? Need some clarification on that.
I think the photos in themselves are brilliant, although the purpose they are used for is dreadfully mismatched.
For example, these photos would have been a powerful and moving means of conveying the disparity between the rich and poor in this world, or shedding light on the apparent irony of poverty.
Unfortunately, using them for the objectives of "realising the power of fashion... no longer a rich man's privilege, that anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful" reveals an insensitivity towards these less fortunate Indians. In my opinion, Vogue has failed terribly in communicating their intended message to their readers.
I personally feel that it is quite impossible to live on $1.25 a day considering the fact that food prices are continually increasing.
However, we have to consider the fact that US$1.25 and S$1.25 makes a world of difference.
To: jeremy
I think models are usually named together with the photographer at the side of the picture. That's how they probably give credit to the ones involved.
I personally feel that this ad shows the difference between the rich and the poor. It also shows how the poor can become rich through their own means (saving for years by starving).
I can kind of catch the meaning behind this ad. However, the message is not too clear and I guess it may mislead some people..
gosh this is not a nice ad. the exploitation of the poor is distasteful. i dun understand why vogue has to do this. they have their models to represent their company. personally i feel that such actions should not be forgiven. im sorry but im one of those who hate it when people get mistreated. as much as vogue is trying to bring this HIGh end brand DOWN TO EARTH, i dont think that it is the best way to do it.
Advertisment? YES! POSITIVE? NO!
It is disturbing to see these ads normally after hearing the true story behind it. Indeed, at first look, I like the artistic feel of the ads, but the way Vogue treated their subjects seemed almost un-ethnical. Why can't they publish their names to give them the credits? It seems inhumane. If only Vogue had made some efforts to contributing to the poor people, e.g. parts of the proceeds of the magazine given to them, it would have much better and also helps create more awareness that these people need our help. It is saddening to hear about their predicaments and I think Vogue India should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting them in the name of 'fashion'.
I bet my left testicle Priya Tanna' has not done a honest days worth of hard labor or lived in total squalor to truly know what it is to "Lighten up"
Sometimes,these fashion magazines are bit paradoxical in nature.They speak of fashion as an individualistic ideal but then you see everyone wearing and doing the same thing because its in "fashion".
God knows maybe it would be "in fashion" to model those skinny starving in kids in Africa! Maybe Cleo can jump on the bandwagon to laugh at the suffering of the poverty stricken.
And the last ,I remembered was that the "models" in those pics were not even named.Nobody is willing to even release any info if they are even PAID for their shoots.
Ah, the arrogance of the elites.No wonder the world ain't evolving anytime soon.
HMmmm..
Well i'm not quite sure. Looking at the things they do. I mean they are very very poor, probably it could be a good thing that they are doing by offering them something to do, and at the same time earning some money for themslves.
I personally think it may not help much, but it still does. cos judgin by they living on $1.25 a day is really something we will nv ever have. These ppl are really poor thing. BUt cant be help if we dont do anything about it.
The clothes that they advertise may not be appealing to people who can afford nice clothes. Cos adverstising these may not be a good idea as well..
This article actually provokes me to comment that sadly there are many of us who are unaware that income inequality is actually a prevalent problem in Singapore as well. In the 2007/2008 human development report, Singapore was given a gini index of 42.5 compared to India’s 36.8. Living off $200 a month in Singapore may just be worse off given our high costs of living. Maybe it’s time us Singaporeans appreciate what we have and take a closer look at those around us.
Post a Comment