Some people haven’t the faintest clue as to how they should go around making opulent style statements. Especially, if done with an inordinate amount of insensitivity and tastelessness. Worse still, if they have the nerve to defend it as callously.
So when Vogue India carried a 16-page photo shoot of decidedly-not-rich people strutting $10,000 Hermès Birkin bags, $5,000 Burberry umbrellas, or $100 Fendi bibs, the magazine was asking for some censure. This came in the form of three articles – in the New York Times, the Telegraph, and the Independent. The thread was duly picked up by a number of blogs. And now the story is all over town.
And as to why none of the Indian news media establishments reacted to the Vogue India shoot, your guess would be as good as mine.
Nearly half of India’s population — about 456 million people — live on less than $1.25 a day, according to World Bank figures released last week. But as any well-briefed luxury goods executive or private banker knows, India also has a fast-growing wealthy class and emerging middle class that make it one of the world’s most attractive new places to sell high-end products.
The juxtaposition between poverty and growing wealth presents an unsavory dilemma for luxury goods makers jumping into India: How does one sell something like a $1,000 handbag in a country where most people will never amass that sum of money in their lives, and many are starving? The answer is not clear cut, though Vogue’s approach may not be the way to go. [The New York Times]
It certainly isn’t. What actually has critics gunning for the glossy is the sneering way in which editor Priya Tanna has defended the shoot.
There are two aspects to look at here – first, the question of media ethics and hypocrisy; the second, Tanna’s sense and (lack of) understanding of the business of fashion in India.
"For our India issue we wanted to showcase beautiful objects of fashion in an interesting and engaging context. We saw immense beauty, innocence, and freshness in the faces of the people we captured. This was a creative pursuit that we consider one of our most beautiful editorial executions. Why would people see it any other way?" [The Independent]
To that, Jossip had this as a retort:
Generally, we'd applaud the use of non-models in a fashion book. But we usually reserve our "thanks for not using anorexic models" applause for those who don't substitute them with "skinny because of malnourishment" persons.
There was more:
Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said. [The New York Times]
Of course, fashion in itself is no one’s privilege. And indeed it can look beautiful. The joy on the woman’s face in one of the photographs is worth dying for. Yeah, they would have been paid some amount for posing for the shoot. But the magazine could have shown some grace by going a step forward than just mentioning them either just as “the lady” or “the man”. Like Tanna has, they would have had names too, isn’t it?
Then again, Vogue India is not about street fashion – it is high fashion. Condé Nast Publications did not really tie up with the India Today Group for a toehold in the Indian market because it wants to democratise fashion. It is too high-brow and upmarket to be doing that; that task is up to other lesser fashion magazines.
For the record, the number of ''high net worth individuals'' (HNWIs) in India at the end of 2006, grew by 20.5 per cent to 100,000, according to the second Asia-Pacific Wealth Report published by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini. If that was not all, their World Wealth Report 2008 went on to reveal that in 2007 India led the world in HNWI population growth, rocketing ahead with 22.7 per cent.
No, this is not the only segment that Vogue India definitely targets. It also caters to the buyers of luxury goods. In 2006 there were a million consumers of luxury goods in India; this number is expected to treble in another two years. The clothing and apparel segment is the largest organised retail category and stands at Rs 1224 billion, if the India Retail Report 2007 is to be referred to. In another two years time, this number is projected to climb up to Rs 1,715 billion.
Now, that is Tanna’s market – the high income and middle-class groups put together. Vogue India is not here to take fashion to the actual middle-class.
In a separate interview she said: "You have to remember with fashion, you can't take it that seriously. We weren't trying to make a political statement or save the world." [The Telegraph]
One can understand what Tanna means by not wanting to make a political statement. What she doesn’t ostensibly understand is that whether you like it or not, you always make a political statement by what you do. By omission, or by commission. And of course, she and her magazine are not here to save the world. The world knows.
If you look at fashion either from the exhibitionist or voyeuristic point of view, perhaps you might say that fashion need not be taken seriously. Perhaps her magazine need not be taken seriously. Yet, Tanna is dead serious in saying that.
Fashion can’t be taken seriously? What the blazes… Apparel alone now has the largest share of the modern organised retail in India – that would be one-fifth of the current market of Rs 56,000 crore. And according to Technopak India Textile and Apparel Trends 2007, this will grow at a constant rate of 20 per cent over the next four years. Now, that’s serious business, Tanna.
Those who derisively dismiss the fashion industry as frivolous are usually those who have nothing else to do but indulge in moral policing in our country. Or they are people who talk about eradicating poverty in India while remaining confined to their swanky offices in New Delhi. Those who know, do know that it is fashion that is driving consumerism in India. You have to take fashion seriously.
Maybe Priya Tanna is in the wrong job. Or maybe she has already grown too big for her Jimmy Choo shoes.
