Faves for this Web page

• shiwani - Sep 02 2008 | india, poverty, money

  Okay, this is seriously effed up.

  Quoted: The juxtaposition between poverty and growing wealth presents an unsavory dilemma for luxury goods makers jumping into India.

  • sung - Sep 02 2008
    

    hmm.. so read the full article and i gotta say... i liked it!

    before you get too upset this is my rationale. if the exact same photo spread was shown as political art show cased in a photo journalistic magazine or in a photo art gallery i think this would have a completely different presentation but the photos would be exactly the same. i think the only reason these images are being looked at with disdain is because it's being showcased by Vogue and because the editor of Vogue which the NYTimes interviewed is an idiot.

    but looking beyond the editor and the magazine i think the images are amazing. i see simple people in amazingly colorful clothing which (in my opinion) puts the luxury goods to shame and more importantly they seem happy. i also see that these people can use these items as functional items. that cost doesn't determine who is allowed to use them - that they can be used by anyone.

    in a way i see the opposite of what luxury goods are supposed to do. luxury goods are supposed to transform the owners of the goods - but in this case i see the people transforming the luxury goods as just goods.

  • shiwani - Sep 02 2008
    

    yeah, i see your point - but the issue is that it IS Vogue, rather than a magazine that's trying to present satire. but i think the farmer with the burberry umbrella and the maid with the hermes bag would rather have the thousands of dollars, considering they make $1.25 a day... also, i'd be curious to know how much they got paid to participate in the shoot.

  • sung - Sep 02 2008
    

    true - but i betcha Vogue was like... find me a photographer whose work is hot right now. the photographer then presented the idea and pushed it on Vogue. and reading into how dumb the editor sounded it could be that the photographer wanted to make beautiful images - and it went completely over the editor's head.

    on a side note - i'm also curious... what did the participants make? also it sounds like $1.25 per day is small - and i'm sure it is... but what's the cost of living. what can you get with $1.25 USD in India? all i know is that you can't buy a cup of coffee in Paris for less then $8 USD which here is considered high way robbery but in Paris it's the norm.

  • sung - Sep 02 2008
    

    did a bit of research.
    1 USD = 44.355 Indian Rupees

    not sure how accurate this is...
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080326184145AAAeiEA
    "it will cost 20 rupee maximum and 12 rupee minimum depend on the area of india. in the north indian state like bihar,orissa it will be 10 to 15 and in south india state like tamilnadu and andhra it will be 15 to 17 in rural ares."

    ** the answer is 5 months old - not sure if that makes a difference.

  • sudha - Sep 03 2008
    

    ya, it's not about cost of living (that's how people justify sweat shops after all) --it's about profiting from people's poverty and i found this whole ad campaign disturbing because of that.

  • sung - Sep 03 2008
    

    i can see your point - sweat shop bad. again i would purpose this.
    a. people in poverty working in sweat shops so they can eat
    b. people in poverty not working in sweat shops starving

    now i also disagree with sweat shops - i think that working conditions can be improved. but the start is - are people able to eat? do they have a roof over their heads? do they have clothing? i would rather have people profit from me so i could cover my basic needs then have those people not profit and not have my basic needs met. it's not ideal - but it's a start.

  • shiwani - Sep 03 2008
    

    all argument aside, i kinda think this is a dumb concept. high fashion isn't for everybody. most people in the first world can't even afford a freaking burberry umbrella. i think the cooper hewitt had the right idea with their exhibit called "design for the other 90%." it treated people living in the third world as consumers with needs, and created smart designs that actually met those needs. http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/

  • kristen - Sep 03 2008
    

    After following this yesterday, i saw a story this morning about an industrialist in Mumbai who is building a 2 BILLION dollar, 60 story home for himself in the city. I guess he will be finding jobs for *600* people, though. (Mukesh Ambani, if you want to look him up - world's 5th richest man)
    Still, this seems like an even more ridiculous contrast between the haves and have-nots in India.

Votes for this web page

• joneskevin