data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13c3c/13c3c7588649d952fecfb2f49b2dec051499a2ee" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84152/84152dff12d6ae7d1bc8bccef83f503df3f2f236" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e981c/e981c311c389738446f52b36b96d096cc02379b5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1ba39/1ba39125d279c806260bd27f98bec9fd1df82c37" alt=""
Quite a photo shoot, hmm?
In a country where 465 million citizens live off 1.25$ a day, here goes a debate as to whether or not Vogue India was being sensitive enough about living conditions of millions of Indians. The 16-page photo shoot above triggered the debate between Vogue India's editor and the Indian citizens. Vogue India defends its work by saying it reflects "the power of fashion", and that "fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege. Anyone can carry it and make it look beautiful." Arguments against the photo shoot include descriptions of it -in local newspapers-as being distasteful, tacky, and vulgar.
Featuring a toothless old man carrying a Burberry umbrella, a child from a poor family wearing a Fendi bib, do you think Vogue India took it too far? Or does their photo shoot really send a strong positive message across? I seriously doubt the latter. Tres intriguing nonetheless.
photocred: nytimes, highheelconfidential