http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/business/worldbusiness/01vogue.html?no_interstitial
Hmm. Showing an impoverished Indian person holding a $10,000* handbag is vulgar and in poor taste. But a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR HANDBAG isn't? Gross consumerism is just that - gross. Vulgar. Distasteful. No matter whose arm it hangs on. And getting called out (however inadvertently) for spending more than the international poverty line on something to haul around your Tic Tacs, cell phone and Black Card, well, that stings a little. And I truly adore the comment that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful." Oh, a rich person can buy fashion. And the wealthy might even be able to purchase style. But taste? Apparently not.
* Per capita income in India = $997(US)/$2700(PPP); number of micro loans for women in the 3rd world that could be funded by $10,000 = 400; behaving like an aristo 3 seconds before the Bastille was stormed? Priceless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't get WHY they did this spread - how is showing a poor person's baby with an Hermes bib going to make me want to buy one? Just poor marketing - Aside from the fact it WAS tacky and thoughtless, it also injures the designers' brands by making them accessible to the "common" folk.
Can you IMAGINE if Vogue USA went to Appalachia and outfitted some toothless hill country folks with Fendi & Prada? WTF? Yes, great idea for an ironic photo art exhibit about classism in this country but NOT so good for magazine sales and pleasing their advertisers.
I really can't imagine that anyone is walking away from this one happy. Least of all the Vogue parent company. Didn't Italian Vogue just do that issue on the most influential black models? This kind of reeks of let them eat cake.
Post a Comment