Vogue India August 2008 Controversy

FogUponLA · 02-09-2008

September 1, 2008
Vogue’s Fashion Photos Spark Debate in India

By HEATHER TIMMONS
NEW DELHI — An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib (retail price, about $100).

A family of three squeezes onto a motorbike for their daily commute, the mother riding without a helmet and sidesaddle in the traditional Indian way — except that she has a Hermès Birkin bag (usually more than $10,000, if you can find one) prominently displayed on her wrist.

Elsewhere, a toothless barefoot man holds a Burberry umbrella (about $200).

Welcome to the new India — at least as Vogue sees it.

Vogue India’s August issue presented a 16-page vision of supple handbags, bejeweled clutches and status-symbol umbrellas, modeled not by runway stars or the wealthiest fraction of Indian society who can actually afford these accessories, but by average Indian people.

Perhaps not surprisingly, not everyone in India was amused.

The editorial spread was “not just tacky but downright distasteful” said Kanika Gahlaut, a columnist for the daily newspaper Mail Today that is based here, who denounced it as an “example of vulgarity.”

There’s nothing “fun or funny” about putting a poor person in a mud hut in clothing designed by Alexander McQueen, she said in a telephone interview. “There are farmer suicides here, for God’s sake” she said, referring to thousands of Indian farmers who have killed themselves in the last decade because of debt.

Vogue India editor Priya Tanna’s message to critics of the August shoot: “Lighten up,” she said in a telephone interview. Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said.

“You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” Ms. Tanna said. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said.

Nearly half of India’s population — about 456 million people — live on less than $1.25 a day, according to World Bank figures released last week. But as any well-briefed luxury goods executive or private banker knows, India also has a fast-growing wealthy class and emerging middle class that make it one of the world’s most attractive new places to sell high-end products.

The juxtaposition between poverty and growing wealth presents an unsavory dilemma for luxury goods makers jumping into India: How does one sell something like a $1,000 handbag in a country where most people will never amass that sum of money in their lives, and many are starving? The answer is not clear cut, though Vogue’s approach may not be the way to go.

Marketers need to “create brand awareness” in India, said Claudia D’Arpizio, a partner with the consulting firm Bain & Company, who is based in Milan. She recommended the approach that some consumer brand companies took in China, opening big flagship stores and trying new forms of advertising like television.

As India’s population becomes more affluent, successful luxury goods manufacturers will “create aspirations,” Ms. D’Arpizio said, and people will buy their products to show their pride in their prosperity. On the other hand, she said, would not be prudent for marketers to open luxury stores on “streets where people are struggling for survival.”

Brands like Gucci, Jimmy Choo and Hermès have been bunking in high-end hotels or banding together in new superluxury malls, where guards are often stationed at the doors to keep the destitute outside. One new mall coming to south Delhi, the gold-leafed and marbled Emporio, even features a spa and a members club, developers say.

For now, the Indian middle and upper class — and the companies that aim to cater to it — are just getting used to having new money, said V. Sunil, creative director for advertising agency Weiden & Kennedy in India, which opened its first office here last September. “No one thinks they need to do something deeper for the public,” like address India’s social ills, he said.

The subjects of the Vogue shoot are the people that luxury goods manufacturers might hope to one day become their customers. Companies are attracted to emerging markets like India because of the millions of people who are “coming from no income and rising quite fast,” said Nick Debnam, chairman of KPMG’s consumer markets practice in the Asia-Pacific region.

The idea of being able to afford something but not buying it because you do not want to flaunt your money reflects a “very Western attitude,” he said. In China and other emerging markets, “if you’ve made it, you want everyone to know that you’ve made it,” and luxury brands are the easiest way to do that, he said.

Still, the in-your-face poverty of India, where beggars sometimes sit outside five-star hotels, does present challenges that companies do not face in other markets. In China, most of the very poor live in rural areas, said Mr. Debnam. “Most of the luxury companies don’t consider these people,” when they’re thinking of selling products, he said, “and even the consumer product companies don’t look at them.”

Not taking a close enough look at the “real people” is drawing criticism for Vogue, too. “The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects” of the photos, said Ms. Gahlaut, the columnist. Instead, Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions, and says they are worn by a lady or a man.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

nytimes.com

kezme44 · 02-09-2008

i wonder how much the models made...

Urban Stylin · 02-09-2008

they shd not pretend that its a feature on th enew india though so long as the models were were paid well..i hav no probm with it am sure many of the pple complaining havent done anything to improve the welfare of these pple

ultramarine · 02-09-2008

this is just like the 90s Benetton ads ...

and you know what?

I LOVE it

**MissMagAddict** · 02-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultramarine

this is just like the 90s Benetton ads ...

and you know what?

I LOVE it

Me too! That woman holding the handbag is gorgeous

I find her much more inspiring than any model I've seen around lately.

**dior_couture1245** · 02-09-2008

^^I agree! It's a stunning shot...joy seems to spill out from the photo.

I'm just getting tired of all this sensitivity that so many people have. I come at this with the belief that the photographer, stylists and editors had no malicious intent. I think it's disappointing when people automatically assume the worst in people...thinking that this shoot was done with a hidden agenda meaning to exploit these people...

If anything...I think this is even more respectful to a culture than having some teenage Eastern European model dress up in ethnic inspired fashion and hang around the streets surrounded by 'average' people.

BonjourTristesse · 02-09-2008

I dont blame you guys for liking it, I can see why you would. Just personally... it feels so weird/wrong to me. Like it makes me "sad" or something. Because the first thing I'm thinking is how pathetic all those 200Dollar umbrellas and hangbags are really. I know, I know... I buy them too and I love fashion. But when I see pictures like that it's like this big bang realisation moment where it becomes clear that most people in this world LIVE off 200 Dollars. And this poor men holding this umbrella and he probably doesnt even know what it is.. ahhhh! they just makes me sick those pictures and i cant even explain it really!

Acid · 02-09-2008

its quite tasteless in my opinion to parade these luxury goods on people in poverty
it comes to show how much the newly wealthy minority in India really cares about the other 99.9%

eternitygoddess · 02-09-2008

I find it very tasteless.

**Spike413** · 02-09-2008

This is just like when Galliano got raked over the coals for doing a collection inspired by the homeless. People, and mind you not the people being depicted but journalists and advocates who aren't living on the streets, were so offended because it was insensitive. Poverty exists all over the world and the main reason people get so worked up about something like this is because it's painful to be reminded of that fact. Everyone knows it, but no one wants to see it.

No one has a problem when fashion adapts the sari into a $2,500 gown, or takes a tiered gypsy skirt and does it in swarovski beaded silk. Everyone can ignore the fact that the clothes are representative of people who live a life of poverty if you dress models in native clothing and photograph them in a real setting. So why is it offensive to portray the actual people instead of an unrealistic fantasy?

I think these people should be proud of the fact that a publication as influential as Vogue decided not to glamourize India but instead saw something beautiful in the reality of India.

And just to clarify, I'm not some super-benevolent activist preaching from my soap box. I'm just as guilty as the next person of passing by homeless people on the streets and making an effort not to see it because it's an uncomfortable reality. That's probably why I appreciate what Vogue India has done.

stateofbliss · 02-09-2008

Well said, Spike413. Part of me feels I should be repulsed by this shoot, but I actually think its beautiful.

kmccormi · 02-09-2008

This reminds me of when Keira Knightley was shot for the US Vogue in Africa, feeding an elphant dressed in LV and posing with natives. That was one of my favorite celebrity editorials ever.

I think that it this kind of thing is morally ambiguous right now, but as images alone, I can't help but find these beautiful.

Atelier · 02-09-2008

The photographs are beautiful.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Priya Tanna so when she says "lighten up," I'm in her corner.

But if we need to delve deeper, I can further turn to Tanna. In the Fall 2007 Time Style & Design supplement there's short article by Betsy Kroll. Tanna says:

"[Indians have] always been surrounded by a sense of luxury. We've had the maharajas who've grown up with Louis Vuitton trunks and jewelry made exclusively for them by Cartier and Boucheron and all that. There's been no cultural revolution that's been thrust upon us. It's not as if we're seeing our first red lipstick and going out and buying it in hundreds of thousands. India is getting richer. At a micro level, I think ever Indian woman who is now financially independent is realizing the joys of guilt-free consumption."

I'm also trying to feel out Kanika Gahlaut. I'm Google'ing her left and right and the vibe I'm getting from her writing is alarmist.

raj · 03-09-2008

In a country where a lot of the people don't even have basic human needs such as clean drinking water, shoving luxury goods down their throats are not going to help their situation.

**Spike413** · 03-09-2008

^ But if that's the thinking then there just shouldn't be any Vogue India at all. This editorial isn't pushing luxury goods any more than all the other editorials that get published.

02-09-2008	#1
FogUponLA backstage pass Profile: Gender: homme Posts: 620	Vogue India August 2008 Controversy September 1, 2008 Vogue’s Fashion Photos Spark Debate in India By HEATHER TIMMONS NEW DELHI — An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib (retail price, about $100). A family of three squeezes onto a motorbike for their daily commute, the mother riding without a helmet and sidesaddle in the traditional Indian way — except that she has a Hermès Birkin bag (usually more than $10,000, if you can find one) prominently displayed on her wrist. Elsewhere, a toothless barefoot man holds a Burberry umbrella (about $200). Welcome to the new India — at least as Vogue sees it. Vogue India’s August issue presented a 16-page vision of supple handbags, bejeweled clutches and status-symbol umbrellas, modeled not by runway stars or the wealthiest fraction of Indian society who can actually afford these accessories, but by average Indian people. Perhaps not surprisingly, not everyone in India was amused. The editorial spread was “not just tacky but downright distasteful” said Kanika Gahlaut, a columnist for the daily newspaper Mail Today that is based here, who denounced it as an “example of vulgarity.” There’s nothing “fun or funny” about putting a poor person in a mud hut in clothing designed by Alexander McQueen, she said in a telephone interview. “There are farmer suicides here, for God’s sake” she said, referring to thousands of Indian farmers who have killed themselves in the last decade because of debt. Vogue India editor Priya Tanna’s message to critics of the August shoot: “Lighten up,” she said in a telephone interview. Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said. “You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” Ms. Tanna said. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said. Nearly half of India’s population — about 456 million people — live on less than $1.25 a day, according to World Bank figures released last week. But as any well-briefed luxury goods executive or private banker knows, India also has a fast-growing wealthy class and emerging middle class that make it one of the world’s most attractive new places to sell high-end products. The juxtaposition between poverty and growing wealth presents an unsavory dilemma for luxury goods makers jumping into India: How does one sell something like a $1,000 handbag in a country where most people will never amass that sum of money in their lives, and many are starving? The answer is not clear cut, though Vogue’s approach may not be the way to go. Marketers need to “create brand awareness” in India, said Claudia D’Arpizio, a partner with the consulting firm Bain & Company, who is based in Milan. She recommended the approach that some consumer brand companies took in China, opening big flagship stores and trying new forms of advertising like television. As India’s population becomes more affluent, successful luxury goods manufacturers will “create aspirations,” Ms. D’Arpizio said, and people will buy their products to show their pride in their prosperity. On the other hand, she said, would not be prudent for marketers to open luxury stores on “streets where people are struggling for survival.” Brands like Gucci, Jimmy Choo and Hermès have been bunking in high-end hotels or banding together in new superluxury malls, where guards are often stationed at the doors to keep the destitute outside. One new mall coming to south Delhi, the gold-leafed and marbled Emporio, even features a spa and a members club, developers say. For now, the Indian middle and upper class — and the companies that aim to cater to it — are just getting used to having new money, said V. Sunil, creative director for advertising agency Weiden & Kennedy in India, which opened its first office here last September. “No one thinks they need to do something deeper for the public,” like address India’s social ills, he said. The subjects of the Vogue shoot are the people that luxury goods manufacturers might hope to one day become their customers. Companies are attracted to emerging markets like India because of the millions of people who are “coming from no income and rising quite fast,” said Nick Debnam, chairman of KPMG’s consumer markets practice in the Asia-Pacific region. The idea of being able to afford something but not buying it because you do not want to flaunt your money reflects a “very Western attitude,” he said. In China and other emerging markets, “if you’ve made it, you want everyone to know that you’ve made it,” and luxury brands are the easiest way to do that, he said. Still, the in-your-face poverty of India, where beggars sometimes sit outside five-star hotels, does present challenges that companies do not face in other markets. In China, most of the very poor live in rural areas, said Mr. Debnam. “Most of the luxury companies don’t consider these people,” when they’re thinking of selling products, he said, “and even the consumer product companies don’t look at them.” Not taking a close enough look at the “real people” is drawing criticism for Vogue, too. “The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects” of the photos, said Ms. Gahlaut, the columnist. Instead, Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions, and says they are worn by a lady or a man. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map nytimes.com
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#2
kezme44 V.I.P. Profile: Location: new york Gender: homme Posts: 3,886	i wonder how much the models made... __________________ i say what what
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#3
Urban Stylin Glamorous Profile: Location: AFRICA Gender: homme Posts: 8,808	they shd not pretend that its a feature on th enew india though so long as the models were were paid well..i hav no probm with it am sure many of the pple complaining havent done anything to improve the welfare of these pple __________________ http://www.dripbook.com/eguana
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#4
ultramarine Emptrix nata svm! Profile: Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Gender: homme Posts: 5,078	this is just like the 90s Benetton ads ... and you know what? I LOVE it __________________ I feel disjointed and away...
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#6
dior_couture1245 On Your Video Phone Profile: Mod Squad Member Location: NY Gender: homme Posts: 5,382	^^I agree! It's a stunning shot...joy seems to spill out from the photo. I'm just getting tired of all this sensitivity that so many people have. I come at this with the belief that the photographer, stylists and editors had no malicious intent. I think it's disappointing when people automatically assume the worst in people...thinking that this shoot was done with a hidden agenda meaning to exploit these people... If anything...I think this is even more respectful to a culture than having some teenage Eastern European model dress up in ethnic inspired fashion and hang around the streets surrounded by 'average' people. __________________ "DIOR, NOT WAR!" - My motto
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#7
BonjourTristesse backstage pass Profile: Gender: femme Posts: 982	I dont blame you guys for liking it, I can see why you would. Just personally... it feels so weird/wrong to me. Like it makes me "sad" or something. Because the first thing I'm thinking is how pathetic all those 200Dollar umbrellas and hangbags are really. I know, I know... I buy them too and I love fashion. But when I see pictures like that it's like this big bang realisation moment where it becomes clear that most people in this world LIVE off 200 Dollars. And this poor men holding this umbrella and he probably doesnt even know what it is.. ahhhh! they just makes me sick those pictures and i cant even explain it really!
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#8
Acid yes Profile: Gender: homme Posts: 12,488	its quite tasteless in my opinion to parade these luxury goods on people in poverty it comes to show how much the newly wealthy minority in India really cares about the other 99.9%
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#9
eternitygoddess V.I.P. Profile: Gender: femme Posts: 6,946 Status: Online	I find it very tasteless.
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#10
Spike413 Shady Profile: Mod Squad Member Location: New York Gender: homme Posts: 12,771	This is just like when Galliano got raked over the coals for doing a collection inspired by the homeless. People, and mind you not the people being depicted but journalists and advocates who aren't living on the streets, were so offended because it was insensitive. Poverty exists all over the world and the main reason people get so worked up about something like this is because it's painful to be reminded of that fact. Everyone knows it, but no one wants to see it. No one has a problem when fashion adapts the sari into a $2,500 gown, or takes a tiered gypsy skirt and does it in swarovski beaded silk. Everyone can ignore the fact that the clothes are representative of people who live a life of poverty if you dress models in native clothing and photograph them in a real setting. So why is it offensive to portray the actual people instead of an unrealistic fantasy? I think these people should be proud of the fact that a publication as influential as Vogue decided not to glamourize India but instead saw something beautiful in the reality of India. And just to clarify, I'm not some super-benevolent activist preaching from my soap box. I'm just as guilty as the next person of passing by homeless people on the streets and making an effort not to see it because it's an uncomfortable reality. That's probably why I appreciate what Vogue India has done. __________________ We’re all fascinated with corruption, the more glamorous the better - Rick Owens my blog; updated Nov 21st - random musings of a fashion fiend Last edited by Spike413 : 02-09-2008 at 09:40 PM.
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#11
stateofbliss V.I.P. Profile: Location: DC Gender: femme Posts: 3,917	Well said, Spike413. Part of me feels I should be repulsed by this shoot, but I actually think its beautiful.
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#12
kmccormi backstage pass Profile: Location: New York Gender: femme Posts: 609	This reminds me of when Keira Knightley was shot for the US Vogue in Africa, feeding an elphant dressed in LV and posing with natives. That was one of my favorite celebrity editorials ever. I think that it this kind of thing is morally ambiguous right now, but as images alone, I can't help but find these beautiful. __________________ ∇ ∆ "Perfection is attained not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away."
	Reply w/ Quote

02-09-2008	#13
Atelier Hoppity Hop Profile: Gender: homme Posts: 8,377	The photographs are beautiful. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Priya Tanna so when she says "lighten up," I'm in her corner. But if we need to delve deeper, I can further turn to Tanna. In the Fall 2007 Time Style & Design supplement there's short article by Betsy Kroll. Tanna says: "[Indians have] always been surrounded by a sense of luxury. We've had the maharajas who've grown up with Louis Vuitton trunks and jewelry made exclusively for them by Cartier and Boucheron and all that. There's been no cultural revolution that's been thrust upon us. It's not as if we're seeing our first red lipstick and going out and buying it in hundreds of thousands. India is getting richer. At a micro level, I think ever Indian woman who is now financially independent is realizing the joys of guilt-free consumption." I'm also trying to feel out Kanika Gahlaut. I'm Google'ing her left and right and the vibe I'm getting from her writing is alarmist.
	Reply w/ Quote

03-09-2008	#14
raj front row Profile: Posts: 248	In a country where a lot of the people don't even have basic human needs such as clean drinking water, shoving luxury goods down their throats are not going to help their situation.
	Reply w/ Quote

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode