25.2.13

PALOMINO MOTEL

In fashion editorials, do you see a moral difference between using third world countries as a backdrop vs areas of obvious abject poverty (like a run-down trailer park) within the US? 

ROCK: KATELYN PASCAVIS BY THIERRY LE GOUES FOR MARIE CLAIRE FRANCE MARCH 2013

3 comments:

alyssa said...

I think the use of an abandoned location is alright. I tend to think it shows the ghostly beauty of a formerly inhabited area, or highlights something beautiful about an otherwise downtrodden location, as if one could envision the lives that had lived there.

I think the problem with using either poor U.S. or foreign locations enters when the people native or local to these areas are used as props rather than co-models with a real purpose. The problem is usually when there is an apparent racial or socio-economic disparity between the models and locals and their role in the shoot, but I don't think a deserted location presents the same problems.

Zuley said...

I agree. Abandoned is eons away from poor and inhabited.

You are invading these peoples space with frivolity and it's kind of a slap in the face.

Noe if you were taking a photo in such a place to show where you are rather than a fashion shoot. That's different. You are showcasing the PLACE or PEOPLE. Not your consumer drive lol

zuleyb.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

I don't think it would be right to consider a run down trailer park "abject" poverty and disregard the poverty that plagues third world countries. In fact, is their poverty not more "abject"? They are stuck in poverty traps because development projects thus far have failed to eliminate culturally harmful power hierarchies.

just a thought...