Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/410-million-indians-living-below-poverty-line-and-they-are-being-acclaimed-as-the-emerging-super-power-2834694.html#ixzz187IClHUU
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

My objection, as I mentioned, is how the Indians are being perceived by the person who posted this and in the comments as well. You treat the Other as a given, solid taken-for-granted category. Using phrases such as “poverty-stricken countries” “economic contrast” etc., you seem to not have the conceptual nuance to tackle difference. You only seem to see difference through glasses which have economic lenses supported by Western liberal frames. Is the guy on the bike really a backdrop? Come on… Ok, fine, maybe it’s not an easy answer. Who really looks more ridiculous? Who really is the prop here? These aren’t easy to answer. In this particular shoot, I would question whether people are being used as “backdrop”, and if they are, then what would one say about the Vogue shoot, where the people are front and centre? In perpetually pointing to how “offensive” these images are, perhaps we occlude other ways of understanding what might be going on.

Also, the quoted statement: “I found it especially insensitive to shoot advertisements for $78 t-shirts in a country that is home to a third of the world’s poor.” It seems like this is the only way you can define my country. And I am offended by THAT. Can we have a different understanding of the Other besides an outdated class-based framework? Not that we need to ignore class/economic categories, but to realise that they are only ONE way of thinking about difference.

People in India, and dare I say it, people in these images, perhaps do not always define themselves in this way and for you to consistently to do so is an immensely reductive way of understanding what these also photos hint at. Perhaps a little Michel de Certeau would be required here to think through questions of difference.

As to your point about “tasteless”, well, “taste” is not neutral and is something that might be worth steering clear of.

My point is, as I have mentioned in my first post, that you seem to reinforce the very narrative that perhaps you could consider critiquing.

Let me say that I do not care much at all for these images and what they are trying to do/sell nor am I excited by the manner in which they are trying to do it. You are aware, I’m sure, of the Vogue India shoot from last year (?). This particular set of photographs is hardly as offensive. Although I can see part of your point. However, there is a lot that this point of view obscures.

What I am particularly struck by, is the manner in which you approach anything that is “Other” to you. Could you put aside the guilt-ridden glasses for just a minute and just LOOK at these images? What does a response such as this add to what we already know? Perhaps it is something this blog should reflect upon.

My main problem is that you (and most of the comments here) seem to only view the Other as passive, “poverty-stricken”, “a glamorous backdrop” or, even worse, “poor”. It is almost as if anyone who is dark or dressed differently from you or from a “poverty stricken country” = any of the above. Do not get me wrong, I certainly understand the need for sensitivity towards the Other, and am aware that the ‘whole world becomes visible at the same time that it becomes appropriable’, however, when you consistently view and frame the Other as passive, lacking agency, exploited etc. you seem to be re-constructing precisely the narrative that you aim to critique. You consistently strip them of the dignity and intelligence that you would want to assign to them, rendering them mute.

I don’t mean to offend anyone here, I am a regular visitor to this blog… however, I just HAD to say this.