If someone was done a disservice, I think it is those high end brands showcased in the spread, and not the models. When looking at that cute little boy and then realizing that the bib he is wearing cost $100, it made it look overpriced and brought home the silliness of brand association.

The man carrying the umbrella looked like he was carrying it because he needed an umbrella and not because it was a burberry umbrella.

I thought the pictures were beautiful because they showed how unaffected the models were despite carrying these expensive accessories. They are oblivious to the meaning of the brands and seem alot happier than most of the people who associate with these brands and consider these items "must-haves".

At first I was shocked and repulsed at hearing about this fashion spread. What a bunch of twisted, shallow, materialistic... you get the idea.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that the move was a provocative way to bring attention to wealth disparities in this world. Obviously this was not Vogue's intention judging from the responses of its editor in that New York Times article. Yet, if those designer goods were instead held up by high-end fashion models, it would not change the fact that there are people who live in poverty in this world. It would just make it easier to ignore.

The fact that the wealth disparities were displayed so intimately in the spread is something new for us. Wealth and poverty are so intertwined, it makes sense that they should be photographed together. Would things be any different if they got separate spreads?

I have always believed that showcasing the best designs on models is doing the world so much injustice as these are people who live very differently from most of us the ordinary people. They restrict themselves when it comes to what they eat.

On the other end the people who were pictured will never restrict themselves from eating too much because they are either too hungry to think about that or they have bigger issues to worry about, one major ine being poverty.

My only hope is that these people were not abused, financially! The question is were they paid what models would have been paid? If they were, nothing wrong with using them. If they were underpaid, then all those brand should feel shame and should never use real people again but stick to the models who are real as well but different...

Masum, I would like to hear your thoughts on the spread. What made it inappropriate in your eyes, if at all?

It is revolting, the very fact that these poor people continue to be exploited by Capitalist nations. Needless to say more, Grace has shared my thoughts (above). Revolting...Sickening...absolute injustice to prey on weak and oppressed.

This evoked Shock. Showed that a bunch of Vogue brand chaperons did run out of their creative juices. Obviously they couldnt find any other theme or brand ambassador to create brand awareness, attract attention of India's elite consumers that they resorted to using India's poor! This Ad doesnt show an abject parody of the Poverty of India's Poor as much as it showed the Vogue Ad dept's Poverty of Ideas!. Totally distasteful, completely lacking in respect and totally ill-mannered Ad. The Ad's creative team should hang its boots for good.

I wonder what was the mission for the team @ Vogue who put this out or were they clueless and just had to get a job done, irrespective of human feelings!

It is all nice of Ms Priya Tanna to say "Lighten Up" and“fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,”

However, Ms Tanna probably does not know this that some of these people pictured there in do not have adequate money to have two meals a day leave alone bedeck themselves in the Burberry's and Fendi's !!

Has Vogue got it cheap? Did they pay these people the same amount of money that they would have paid regular models?

If they were indeed there to do an act of good, let them ensure that they find means to fend the poor.

Life is much more than realizing the "power of fashion".

Media plays an important role in our day to day lives and magazines like Vogue (though read only an elite few), should make sure that they do not misuse this mode!!

I think the shock might betray the own prejudices of those shocked. We are disturbed by images of poverty, and we are made uncomfortable when confronted with the poor enjoying luxury goods. Why? Do they not have the right? We also do not know the life stories of each of those people in the photos. They may not be wealthy, but maybe they are subsisting, so sticking labels on them such as “abject” and “poverty-stricken” shows our own feelings towards those with less than us monetarily. I think some of the shock and outrage has a whiff of the hypocritical about it.

Dear Quinn

Your reaction to the collective expression of shock and grouping it into hypocrisy shocked me indeed. The shock I expressed here in my previous note was real, emanating from my experience in having lived amongst those poverty stricken people for first 30 years of my life. Trust me, it is a first-hand experience - these poor people of my country dont have means for 2 decent meals a day. They dont live in homes, they live in shanty huts that get carried away in the lashes of rain, they dont have pure drinking water and are so illiterate that they dont know how to read and write...they obviously are not the right MODEL for Vogue and VOGUE used them to GRAD ATTENTION BY SHOCK - an ad strategy used by mediocre AD EXECS.The SHOCK expressed by all here is legitimate and very much appropriate. Just my $0.02 cents here as a representative of those poor people telling VOGUE not be profit by exploiting their economic status.

Quinn, I think you misunderstand the reactions that come from genuine concern and outrage by classifying them as hypocritical.
However I do agree with you when you say that we should not label the people in the pictures as simply being abjectly poor.
The pictures made me curious to know the story of the photoshoots. How were the interractions between the fashionistas and the models and did both parties learn something new about humanity and come out of this experience better and stronger. That is what intrigues me most.

I must state that the shock and outrage that I was in question of is not necessarily that of the women who have posted in this forum thread. Rather, I was referring to the shock and outrage that seemed to be "erupting" from media sources. To me, this just seemed very manufactured and a bit cynical - the latest outrage to fill headlines in publications who run ads by those very same luxury goods companies. The hall of mirrors that is the media reporting on the media reporting on the media always makes me a bit wary. In the end, the luxury goods companies win because we are all talking about the ads. They've done their job.

I have mixed feelings about this. It certainly does not feel comfortable to think that these people are somehow being mocked by their presence in these ads. And, it forces us to think about how much money we spend on luxury goods while others go without basic necessities. However, if these "models" were paid the same wages as the other models in the magazine, then I say more power to them.

wetkri

No this is not appropriate. Why use poor people or people to your advantage?


[URL=http://simulationpretimmobilier.net/simulation-pret-immobilier/simulation-pret]Simulation prêt[/URL]