Glamour. Strange word, that. Used to mean all sort of things in the past, most notably, some kind of magic. Our generation uses the term more vaguely (our generation uses all terms vaguely), to mean mystique, a compelling allure that you can’t quite put your finger on.

It’s an outdated word, true. Been replaced by hipper cousins like fashion and edginess and cool. And, slowly, quite imperceptibly, it’s been distancing itself from advertising. Some people think it’s a phase. A separation, rather than something final. I believe advertising people have made sure that there’s just no room for it anymore.

Time was when advertising was the place for glamour. (Back when everywhere was the place for something or the other. That concept died, too.) The images, the icons, the trends. Hell, even the smoke-filled halls of ad agencies held a little bit of that elusive quality

Not anymore. Now advertising can squarely be described as real. (End-of-chapter exercise: Count the wrinkles on the Dove lady’s face.) It can also be funny. (Look at that elephant get the Rollo/ the Pepsi/ the whatever.) Or, mypersonal favorite, it has a ‘look’. (I swear, that word was invented for inverted commas.) This last one is usually achieved through a stunningly high-strung creative collaboration between fashion designer and photographer, and, the occasional creative director. (Examples of the former: Every single logo-and-picture fashion ad you see in the foreign glossies. The latter: Every single logo-picture-body-copy-and-address panel fashion ad you see in the local glossies.)
Courtesy: www.dove.com
Isn’t fashion advertising, at least, glamorous still? I think not. When it used to be, the models were bigger than the fashion. Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista, Helena Christensen, and the rest of the beautiful people in ‘Freedom’. Somehow, they’d gone from being clotheshorses and magazine covers to a collection of individuals.

They had personalities. Distinctive styles. And, yes, glamour. Tons of it.Today’s supermodels are as beautiful as ever, true, except they’re second to the ‘look’. (The vision. The trend. The set piece.) They have some rare charisma, of course, but there’s nothing indefinable about it. Look at a fashion ad today and it’s right there before you. Beautiful, yes. But also, manufactured, controlled, and created. And if it isn’t mysterious, it isn’t glamorous.

In fact, back then, the photographers were bigger than the fashion, too. As creative people, not as people capable of capturing a look. Big difference, trust me. And the single largest reason why, today, fashion images are beginning to blur into each other as brand after brand hacks its way through/ under/ over/ alongside a trend.

Does that mean glamour is dead? Not at all. It’s just relocated. To film. (Like the cult of Quentin Tarantino.) To design. (Think Alessi. Think Starck. Think Sottass. God, this is tiring.) To movie stars, but only sparingly. (Jolie, Kidman, Bellucci, Jude Law.) To street artists, to rappers, to writers, even.

Will it ever return to advertising? Unlikely. Doubly so, when, with every passing day, we spend time, money and energy to figure out new ways to gain greater control over the advertising image, the individual frame.

It’s a point of view that can be stated much more simply (but for that, you need an art director). Eva Herzigova and ‘Hello, boys’ were all about glamour in advertising. The newer Wonderbra ads, each one of them, are just as sexy. Minus the glamour.

Mail your comments to sangeeta.velegar@jwt.com