I've not read this book yet I don't think... whatever, it's hard to judge a quote like this out of context at the best of times. But my gut feeling is that he's shock-factor exaggerating. I mean, I find the use of the word 'envy' surprising, even in terms of describing publicity rather than fashion photography (which is your specific interest). Why not 'aspire' or 'desire' - 'lust' or 'greed' even? But not envy.

Because for me the word envy is up there with hatred as major evil. I swear I'm not religious but, just from observation, envy may be one of the most damnable emotions that can afflict anyone, subject and object. It seems to be the only 'sin' that has absolutely no redeeming features. Like a form of spiritual leprosy, it putrifies its subjects from within and, as projected (self) loathing, stinks out everyone it comes into contact with.

Envy can be found in every domain, not just fashion/photography - but it will always be at the most obstructive, vile, snidey, pap-crap-lowest-common-denominator-arse-end of anywhere you care to examine. Absolutely nothing glamourous about it, actually?

Envy is, as ever, "created through a lack of honesty, a lack of openness, a lack of humility and humanity" - but not just in fashion photography. It's everywhere. More prevalent in the fashion industry generally though? Doubt it but don't know.

bump

I would say that envy and all it's facets are a product (perhaps a side effect) of fashion photography...but isn't everything that is "marketable" trying to be envious?

The american government invented consumerism post-war. The need to want was manufactured to pull America out of the depression. It kind of stuck...and it has continued to evolve today, and despite everyone being aware of it, it continues...envy as far as I know was fairly solid in the bible, and it's very much part of modern life...it's not something we can do much about without a complete eclipse of the human condition.

It's open ended and almost irrelevant as so long as there is someone striving, achieving, or doing something that some else would like to do...there's always gonna be envy. So long as there is someone who wants to be envied...there's always going to be some place in the market for it.

I agree. I mean, is there any point getting all principled about what is essentially the grease that makes this shitty industry work in the first place?

I don't think it's about getting principled. And I don't think it's about striving or achieving. I guess you have to read the book, and I have to re-read it because my little brain takes time to absorb this stuff, but in it Berger traces the last 400 years or so of oil painting and places these ideas of publicity and advertising as a direct continuation of them.

And he is not saying that envy is a side effect of these things. But rather is a driving principle behind them!

The idea of glamour being tied up in this is, to me, fascinating. And revealing.

But then I'm coming from a position of not really understanding glamour and the fashion industry and always being suspicious of it to some extent. When i look at a fashion photograph often I dont understand it. I don't understand why the image has been generated in this way. With the models posing in this way. I am unsure about what this image is trying to tell me. I know I am generalising now but bear with me. I often feel there is a coldness to it. And so for Berger to suggest that that coldness is an essential part of the machinery of glamour then it makes some sense to me.

To me it's a question of looking. Why we look and what we're looking for. It's interesting that in lots of cinema for example the idea is to be allowed access into a person's (character's) life. We are looking because we are allowed to look at someone as they live, as they breath, and this access results in empathy or at least in understanding. Which is also true in lots of photography. But in glamour the idea is the opposite. It is to not reveal truth about the subject but rather to hide it. The subject does not allow you to empathise with them. They are in another place. On another level. They are not like you and me. Which, of course, is bollocks. Right?

are you saying that this lack of empathy for the subject elicits a desire to emulate them?

Oh please, please don't make me read this book...

It's a thin book with lots of pictures and all the type is in bold.

OK. But meanwhile, where does humour fit in with John Berger's 'image of himself made glamourous by the product' publicity theory? Have you seen, say the recent/current "British summertime - blink and you'll miss it" Boots TV ad? Isn't envy more likely to lead people to destroy what they perceive to be glamourous rather than emulate it (see Heat, Closer etc)?

What if glamour is just meaningless fluff?

Suppose I really will have to read the book now. :-(