To get a idea of the life of poor people in India..Watch this video..
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXP2sM7cFac&feature=related[/youtube]
(one thing about the video is that i dont understand why the people have to be converted..)
Man Holding Burberry Umbrella
Woman Holding $10,000 Hermes Bag
Women wearing designers shoes valued above $1,000 each
Baby wearing $100 Fendi Bib
Hey guys, this is my first attempt at posting =]
So bascailly Vogue India is causing alot of tongues to be wagged…in their August issue there is a spread which depicts people from rural areas wearing high end luxury goods..
These are the poorest of the poor (465 million people) who live on $1.25 a day. In a country where there are farmers committing suicides because of shortage of food…where families are forced to sell daughter because their dowry cannot be afforded (talking about the rural population here.. not the big city dwellers who are the new middle class)
How do you guys feel?…Is this just fashion to you or do you find it offensive that the poor are being just “paraded around” ?
Do you think this a genius editorial ( my mom thought so ) which has a bit of humor and some light charm? Are we laughing at poverty if we find these pictures a work of art?
-Pictures from Highheelconfidential.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01vogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This editorial is being called “an example of vulgarity”
According to vogue India’s editor, “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful.”
![[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXP2sM7cFac&feature=related[/youtube]](https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/welfare/wp-content/blogs.dir/77/files/2008/09/vogue_august_controversy.jpg){kind=link}
I believe the vogue editorial spread featuring the rural poor of India in high end designer clothing is an insult to those very people. These families hardly make enough money to survive daily, they struggle to find jobs, struggle to put food on the table… yet they are pictured “wearing” these types of clothes. The Vogue spread is distasteful, how can you feature India’s poor wearing designer bags, shoes etc… I’m sure they don’t even know how much it costs. That’s like putting America’s homeless is Vogue and having them wear designer gear… a very insulting and wrong way of making people fashion forward. The editor says “fashion is no longer a rich mans privilege”, she’s right about that when it comes to department stores making fashionable clothes we can all afford, but don’t you think the poor people of India have better things to worry about then fashion?
We should also comment a bit about that video…. it is a great text for us to read: what are the claims that are being made about rural india – “tribal” “primitive” “poor” and then how is aid justified – hardworking individuals, education, conversion to good christian values… basically this girl is being positioned as a modern child, waiting to be christian and educated, but held back by her poor tribal, unchristian primitive surroundings. She is the deserving poor… in their eyes.
then as far as that editor’s comment, that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privledge” boy is that loaded….. So how do we relate that to jame’s question in his post? Or are these circumstances totally different?
Also – and this is a tricky question – but why might high fashion in India choose to run such ads? what is the message? And would a high fashion company in the US ever do something similar? Do they already?
so much to talk about I couldnt’ resist….
I agree with Roshni Ally, I cant believe that Vogue would put the poor people of India in clothing that only the rich can afford. I understand the idea that “fashion is no longer a rich mans privelege” That is true to a point such as people who can afford average clothing..it doesnt have to be expensive to be fashion. But why would the people of India who are living day to day hoping that they will survive off of $1.25 be interested in wearing couture clothing? Their lives are a everyday struggle, they make $85 a year! In the video, the young girl helps her father carry the wood so that they can sell it to people in the villages. This family works together so they can make money in order to eat. In the video we see that these families only eat rice and water, and that their saddest thing is going to bed hungry…not wearing a 100 dollar fendi bib. The young girl in the video has a sponsor to help her get an education,clothing and food. There is no reason why they should put people who are living in poverty in a vogue magazine wearing high end fashion. I dont think that the fashion companies in the US would put the homeless in vogue with high end fashion. What is the point? they cant afford it, and obviously I feel they would only want to attract their target market which would be the rich. By doing this they only insult the indian families. The people of India have to work very hard just for their necessities. I dont think they care about these luxuries.
This is an interesting topic. Poor people wearing expensive clothes and posing for an expensive magazine that probably only rich people look at. I agree with Gina that the target market is the rich, but I believe that culture plays a huge role in this shoot. One thing that I’ve noticed about South Asian culture is no matter how rich and luxurious their lives get, they still stay somewhat close to their cultural traditions. This type of advertising may very well be an intriguing and appealing way for these companies to not only sell to the rich, but also sell this cultural idea of even “the lower class” can look good with rich products. With the caste system idea that certain classes are better than others, I think that this type of advertising would very much appeal to the middle class of India causing them to “out do” the poor and get closer to the rich. I know someone is going to say that the caste system no longer exists, but it does, although it may have different criteria dividing the classes than it did before.
At the end of it all, I’m sure the people in the shots got some type of compensation, and even if they didn’t, they had the luxury of feeling rich for a day.
I would love for someone to hand me a Ferrari to drive it and take photos for car and driver magazine…..But that’s just my two cents.
This reminded me of the movie Zoolander… for those of you who haven’t seen it, Will Farrell plays the role of a famous designer who hires a dumb model, played by Ben Stiller, for his latest collection “Derilite” (or something like that) which consist of trash and “homeless wear”… The movie is funny, but I don’t find the same humor when done to real people. However, I don’t necessarily agree that any harm is done with this spread, since after all, it comes from an artistic point of view, and there are, and have been much more controversial pieces done, throughout history. Whats really crazy is that the companies that manufacture these “luxury items” pay their laborers scraps, while selling their products for absurd amounts of money… forever perpetuating the cycle of the rich living off the poor.
I think the editorial did exactly what it was supposed to be, it’s supposed to be a bit edgier to provoke thoughts and more than that to generate more publicity.
Personally I didn’t really give it much thought, I leafed through my issue of vogue looked at the photos and enjoyed them for what they were, a creative and artistic expression.
Does vogue have a sponsorship program that gives the poor rural people education and food? If not they should because that would give the magazine more credibility.