?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Vogue India and "runner-up-ization" - click opera
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 11:58 am
Vogue India and "runner-up-ization"

Here's a photograph that appears in the August edition of Vogue India. The photograph -- and the controversy it's sparked -- is discussed in this New York Times article (thanks to Lord Whimsy for the link).



Although India's economic boom is decreasing its poverty levels (even as it raises the Gini coefficient which measures inequality), the nation still has some of the world's poorest people. According to the Wikipedia Poverty in India page, 75.6% of the Indian population are living on less than $2 a day (that's worse than sub-Saharan Africa, where 72.2% live on less than $2 a day). The richest 10% in India hog 33% of the nation's income.

It was probably the emergence of this rich 10% which led Conde Nast to launch Vogue India in October 2007, which in turn led to the August 2008 fashion shoot by Paris-based photographer Jean-Francois Campos. Here (left) is the cover of Vogue India's first issue, and (right) a page from Campos' shoot for the latest edition, featuring a child modeling a $100 Fendi bib.



The first thing to note is the racial hierarchy; Vogue India's first edition looks a bit like an Olympics dias in which a blonde caucasian woman who's apparently won the gold medal is flanked by two Indian women -- runners up, it seems, with silver and bronze. The Indian women wear coloured contact lenses and sport Western styles, but at least the ethnicity of the target market is represented: Vogue Nippon (like Numéro Japan) seems to have banished Japanese women from its covers altogether.

When Vogue India shows Indian women, it restyles them to look as Western as possible. A cover feature on Bollywood film star Gauri Khan saw her radically restyled; her usual bindi spot and traditional Indian fabrics were replaced by a little red mini dress and notably whiter skin shades (though her hair did darken a few shades, perhaps to emphasize this new pallor).

I think Jean-Francois Campos' photos in the current Vogue India are an advance on the bling values expressed in their transformation of Gauri Khan. You probably know by now how I feel about bling, and about Western values. I think our culture is an aesthetic and spiritual laggard. I think the world's poor dress, in general, better than the world's rich, whether it's the Tlicho people dressing better than most of my friends on Facebook, or the Turks in Neukolln dressing better than the affluent conformists in Prenzlauer Berg.

Campos is an interesting photographer: he seems to make it his trademark to juxtapose rich Western fashion models with poor developing world street people. Here are some shots from his portfolio at Michele Filomeno, the agency that represents him:



Now, these juxtapositions are provocative (they're what the New York Times article is all about), but they're also teasingly polysemous. Personally, I find the luxury products placed in these poverty contexts the least interesting things there. I'm not looking at the $200 Burberry umbrella, or, if I am, I'm noticing how remarkably similar to a $2 umbrella it is, and how seamlessly it fits into a cheap outfit. It certainly isn't stealing the show.

"The subjects of the Vogue shoot are the people that luxury goods manufacturers might hope to one day become their customers," the New York Times suggests. I totally disagree with that; who on earth would want to work their way "up" from a $2 bib or umbrella to a $200 bib or umbrella that looks and functions exactly like it? What would be the point? Who would benefit?

One possible answer appears in the Wikipedia entry on poverty in India under the heading The Developmentalist View. It's a process I'd call "runner-up-ization". Far from helping India to wealth, the British Empire set it back, industrially, by a century or so. "In 1830, India accounted for 17.6% of global industrial production against Britain's 9.5%, but by 1900 India's share was down to 1.7% against Britain's 18.5%... Not only was Indian industry losing out, but consumers were forced to rely on expensive (often monopoly produced) British manufactured goods, especially as barter, local crafts and subsistence agriculture was discouraged by law. The agricultural raw materials exported by Indians were subject to massive price swings and declining terms of trade... Those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today".

No wonder Japan wasn't that keen on opening up to trade with the West! (Here, by the way, are two images of Japanese traditional dress: a young Kahimi Karie with her grandmother -- taken from her post-materialist MyLohas blog -- and my favourite image from the Style from Tokyo blog we discussed yesterday, showing artist Kuniyoshi Kaneko.)



A "developmentalist view" of what Vogue India seems intent on achieving, then, would see it displacing Indian ethnic role models to second and third positions, and encouraging a consumer appetite for much more expensive consumer goods imported from the West.

But I think other things may be at work. While Vogue India's shareholders and backers and editorial team may indeed be invested in "runner-up-izing" India, it's possible that a photographer like Campos has a different agenda. Being based in Paris, it's likely that Campos (who incidentally made his first breakthrough at a particularly pivotal moment of the "triumph" of the Western system: he photographed the collapse of the Berlin Wall) shares the French love of orientalist exoticisation, and is trying to make the magazine less bling, and more attuned to its local context.

That strategy is unlikely to play well to the magazine's newly-affluent Indian readers, who're undoubtedly trying to distance themselves as much as possible from the urban poor. But it does sit well with the post-materialist syndrome I reported a few years ago in an essay called Mongoloid.



That essay was triggered by a campaign Michiko Kitamura shot in Mongolia for Cocue. She dressed nomadic mountain tribespeople in Cocue clothes, mixing them in to very much the same effect Campos has achieved in India -- making very expensive clothes look like very cheap ones, and very cheap clothes look very expensive.

I expounded two ideas in the Mongoloid piece. Both proposed the circularity of materialist and post-materialist aspiration cycles -- like the Grand Old Duke of York, aspiration marches its armies to the top of the hill only to march them down again.

"Capitalism," I wrote, "builds an industrial base, blights all beauty in the process, then, finally, gets rich enough to make luxury products which re-capture the lost beauty. Most of us must live ugly and contingent lives in offices and traffic jams in order to afford the occasional glimpse of beauty. Many abandon the idea of beauty altogether on the way. It's just too grim trying to hold onto it when you're surrounded by toxic industrial amusements (speeding cars, football matches). But a few tender souls do cling to the hope that beauty and dignity may still be possible on this planet. Instinctively, they search for it in two places: at the very bottom and the very top. In that which is unworthy of capitalism, and that which transcends it."

Having posited the idea that beauty could exist amongst the very rich and the very poor (but rarely in between), I asked:

"Will these photographs cause a Japanese tourist influx into Mongolia? And if so, how will the Japanese react when they see the ugly chemical works of Ulan Bator? How will these tourists react when they see the urban and slightly more affluent cousins of our friends in the Cocue advertisement dressed in the ugliest synthetic sportsgear, pirated Nike and Tommy Hilfiger? And how many generations will pass before our nomad cousins climb the ladder of consumer sophistication high enough to want to enter a Cocue store and buy exactly the clothes their ancestors wore decades or centuries before?"

I answered my own unanswerable question with faux-scientific precision: "The correct answer is, of course, 4.8 generations given a 6% annual rise in GDP." But a sadder answer -- given the developmentalist view, and ongoing runner-up-ization, is "never". The Grand Old Duke of York will never reach the top of the hill, will never realize that the view is over-rated, and will never march down again. Instead of a marcher-up he'll be -- if the British effect on India is anything to go by -- a runner-up, forced to pay more and more for the same basic items, and to see himself confined to the edge of the picture rather than at its centre. Wearing coloured contact lenses.

31CommentReplyShare


(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 10:48 am (UTC)

You seem very sure that your aesthetic is THE aesthetic. There's another aspect of the "post-materialist" aesthetic which is really about oneupmanship. It's the aristocrat with his threadbare carpets and shabby suit who looks down on the parvenus who "buy their own furniture". When the upper middle class feel financially threatened by the nouveaux riches, they move on to other more subtle social signifiers.

Are you so very sure it's wrong of Bombay youth to want to hang out in malls and wear Western brands? Your exoticising of the poor and the "ethnic" very much belongs to a certain kind of sensibility. Dare I say it a certain liberal middle-class Western sensibility. Are you, in fact, simply trying to impose your own Western notion of aesthetics? Maybe what you're proposing is the equivalent of some Indian asking you to dress in a shellsuit and hang out in McDonalds?


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 11:02 am (UTC)

Maybe what you're proposing is the equivalent of some Indian asking you to dress in a shellsuit and hang out in McDonalds?

Your metaphor would only make me a reactionary if trickledown really did work, really was the tide that floated all boats. And the history of India under the British -- or the poverty stats for today's India -- seem to suggest that trickledown is not happening. Instead, a colonial occupation which sapped India and set its own industrialisation process back centuries has been replaced by a neo-imperial global system which has pretty much the same effect.

The weakness of my argument is probably that I mix aesthetic and economic arguments, but I can't help that -- I have econo-moralistic eyes. But if I'm "imposing my Western notion of aesthetics" I'm going about it a strange way, aren't I? Why would I be condemning my own system in that case and championing the systems it displaces?


ReplyThread Parent Expand

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand


electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 10:54 am (UTC)

That, or it could just be sexism. WHO KNOWS?!

You're totally late to the party compared to the feminist blogs though.


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 11:13 am (UTC)

Could you explain the sexism charge?

URLs to feminist blogs discussing these issues? I'd be interested.


ReplyThread Parent Expand



(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand



(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)

That's right. There are many valid charges that can be levelled at Britain over its colonial exploitation but the idea that it set back Indian industrialization isn't one of them.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 03:57 pm (UTC)
Feel the cut

Quality does have a role to play, surely. For example - do Uniqlo qualify as disposable clothes? It's almost impossible to wear them after one wash. Rather than cheap permanent clothes they are very expensive disposable coverings. Plasticized, landfill. Not green, not cost efficient. Not beautiful and hardly ethnic, whatever the patterning.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)

Damn... Vogue be trippin'.


ReplyThread

imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 05:33 pm (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist_stereotyping_of_Scotsmen_is_very_bad_and_naughty_says_someone_at_Wikipedia


ReplyThread Parent







(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 05:36 pm (UTC)

One of the most cherished concepts I have gotten from reading about Hindu religions (I realize saying "Hindu" is a gross generalization for a place as diverse as India but i mean at least those traditions mostly influenced by the Vedic and Epic literature) is the sense that the material world is not only false/illusion/25% of creation, but that it is also a path away from true self awareness. There are certainly many bling-out deities and a sense of epic opulence in Vedic literature but there seems to be this general understanding towards the material world that is drastically out of line with anything in Western religion and philosophy (and science, until only recently) have been founded upon.

I took an Indian history course recently and when we arrived in the 20th century alot of it reminded me of what I had read about Japan. I think ultimately places like India and China and Japan have the sheer numbers and centuries of independent existence that enable them to survive and surpass any attempts by capitalism to try and "modernize" them.

Adam Bruneau


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Tue, Sep. 2nd, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC)

When Vogue India shows Indian women, it restyles them to look as Western as possible. A cover feature on Bollywood film star Gauri Khan saw her radically restyled; her usual bindi spot and traditional Indian fabrics were replaced by a little red mini dress and notably whiter skin shades (though her hair did darken a few shades, perhaps to emphasize this new pallor).

This may have a good bit to do with the Brahma caste being the highest-up on the ladder, the most pure, the most Aryan, etc. that whole line of thinking, which I've heard is something of an issue in modern India as much as race is an issue in US/UK. I put forth that this is due to 20th-century Western influence, the fact that the more affluent Indians have had easier access to the West, and an internal struggle over the whole Vedic-Brahman-Aryan indigenous lineage that is still being fought over.

Adam B


ReplyThread
microworlds
microworlds
Sparkachu Maelworth
Wed, Sep. 3rd, 2008 04:02 am (UTC)

WHO CARES?????? MAGAZINE ARE REFORMING GOD DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!


ReplyThread
pay_option07
pay_option07
Wed, Sep. 3rd, 2008 04:02 am (UTC)
a runner-up, forced to pay more

Articles like these summon thoughts of Susan Sontag's comparison of western culture to an all consuming virulent cancer. In Whims neck of the woods shops located in depressed neighborhoods
sell their consumables for far more than in an upscale neighborhoods. So this unusual mercantile system often appears
not only in India but the west as well.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Wed, Sep. 3rd, 2008 04:33 am (UTC)
Re: a runner-up, forced to pay more

http://www.slate.com/id/2111506/


ReplyThread Parent Expand

imomus
imomus
imomus
Wed, Sep. 3rd, 2008 11:35 am (UTC)

A Mexican reflection on the Mongolian thing raised here.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Sat, Sep. 6th, 2008 09:48 am (UTC)
Gauri Khan

I never mind any criticism of Vogue but just for the sake of accuracy, I don't think they can be blamed with regard to Gauri Khan's "transformation." The pictures you found are actually fairly rare. Gauri usually doesn't dress in traditional Indian clothes. As far as the skin tone goes, the darker tone is due to her obsession with tanning. She is lighter naturally so I think Vogue can be given a pass there also.

here are some recent photos:

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/233/still15in8.jpg

http://www.highheelconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/gauritemptations1.jpg

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/204/16vt2ot4.jpg

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/9418/gauriwhitney1qm4.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9938/gaurizeepe7.jpg

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1366/sahrukhbooklaunch1dl1.jpg

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1017/still15do8.jpg

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/6195/t128ry0.jpg


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Mon, Oct. 6th, 2008 06:45 pm (UTC)
Rahul Greg

You obviously are an absolute moron Nick who has not context of fashion nor India and are an obvious major source of embarrassment to our own.

We just enjoyed reading this joke of an article and laughing at your pictures and your fucking ugly looking blog layout. Lol. You're a funny guy.



ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Wed, Oct. 8th, 2008 03:20 pm (UTC)
Re: Rahul Greg

What a fucking little looser this guy is. Failed songwriter or whatever it is that this guy fry does, failed writer. You're a blooming moron Nick, indeed as said above, a bloody shame to the British.

What do you know about India anyways? Fuck that, you don't even know anything about music, and your negligible track record proves that.
We understand, its natural for frustrated losers like you to try and make some noise now and then trying to show they know it all.

Unfortunately, you can't be perceived as intelligent, because you're not. So a piece of advice, don't try so hard. Know where you stand and stay there. Or else try to a do a good honest job of whatever you try to. Losers like you stand out like sore thumb.

Btw, you look terrible.


ReplyThread Parent