Couture conversation: Can fur be ethical, outrageous, ...

[Animal 0]

Couture conversation: Can fur be ethical, outrageous, practical, stylish and laughable?
Nathalie Atkinson and Derek McCormack, Weekend Post
Published: Friday, December 04, 2009



Nathalie I was just in Paris and was struck by how every woman there seems to be wearing the stuff - Left Bank, Right Bank, cheap, faux, real, posh - all stylish. Those big chubby short coats that are so Ivana Trump revisited, lots of rabbit dyed into leopard print, shaggy lamb gilets, trapper hats. I haven't seen that much fur in a long time, even here it's offered at every price point, real or fake. Is "fur," whatever it's made from, the new fashion- insider signifier, like last season's crazy big Balmain shoulders?

Derek I don't doubt that it's the new signifier, but what is it signifying? I find it interesting that fur - an ostentatious and obvious sign of wealth - would come back in a big way in a big recession. Are fur wearers kidding themselves, trying to kid other people or simply having a laugh?

Nathalie Fur in fashion equals wealth and there's a desire for that feeling. Anyone who's buying real fur doesn't mind being conspicuous whether from an ethical standpoint or ostentatious, financial standpoint. But then there's also the separate element of aesthetics - fur has become exotic both by its periodic long absences from fashion trends (in large part thanks to PETA) and its association with Eastern Europe. There seems to be a noticeable wave of real fur in vogue that hasn't happened in a while - not the traditional Dennis Basso-type full mink and sables that Vogue advertises but shaggy vests, neon tinted furs from Michael Kors, even fluffy Muppet-feathered vests and coats, which while not exactly fur, are animal material. Does that mean designers are less scared of PETA these days?
Derek I think designers are scared of not creating clothes that sell to monied Russians. I think some shoppers want to seem like people who are so rich they don't have to worry about optics or ethics. As for aesthetics, I think you're right: Fur is very du jour. The Fur Council of Canada goes on and on about how the furs you'll find in stores are not your grandmother's fusty coats. Fur means frou-frou vests, and furbelows on sweaters, and trim on purses. Which, to me, undercuts the Council's argument that fur is a great investment, an heirloom that's supremely sensible in cold climates. I mean, is it worth killing an animal for a strip of fuzz on a purse?

Nathalie I think a compelling case can be made for fur as a sustainable product, an ethical product, an ecological product. But it's difficult to defend anything that's a trend as an ecological product - that fur handbag - because people dressing according to the passing fad is not a sustainable practice. Is it any better if it's decorative rather than useful when it's faux, or upcycled, fur? Harricana and Rachel F. make a point of using only the latter. Or are they just sidestepping the question entirely? It's ironic, since I'd wager that most of the fur coats of the past were not made using the ethical, humane legal standards on trapping animals that Canada has since pioneered and implemented. If you are against real fur then you should probably be against faux and recycled, too, since it glorifies the way real fur looks - it's a facsimile.

Derek Harricana and Rachel F. - who turn old furs into new fancies - don't sidestep the question. They can't. There is no way to sidestep the ethical problems that fur presents. I must disagree with you, my dear Nathalie. I don't think there are compelling cases to make for fur as an ethical or ecological product. Fur is Green, the Fur Council's ad campaign, strikes me as laughable - or, it would be laughable if it weren't so cynical. Perhaps I am perverse: I think that there are only illogical reasons for wearing fur, and these I can fathom to a far greater degree. People wear fur because they're dying to seem affluent. People wear fur because there's an aura of cruelty or taboo-breaking about it. I don't condone these reasons, but part of me, the perverse part, can see that they're powerful.

Nathalie Human civilization as a whole is an affront to nature, and it's not just fur! Still, I have to admit that I love the careless look of a big gorgeously warm fur coat worn over a T-shirt and leggings, the way Vera Wang does. I just do. It's a decadent juxtaposition. Should I only approve of fur when it's directly about keeping warm up in James Bay? Probably. But I've been influenced by how fashion divorces the aesthetics from the original intended function. I suspect that people who are practical, logical and unsentimental about animal fur in principle - for ecologically mandated population control, or skins sold as the by-product of food trapping in aboriginal communities (because the reality, Derek, is that many animals are humanely trapped in the wild and not farmed and raised for fashion) - well, those people aren't the ones wearing high-fashion fur. There's a certain practicality and rationality involved in that type of argument for human stewardship of nature that doesn't line up with high fashion ideals. There are people who believe in the locavore movement, and that it's all right to eat meat as long it's humanely raised and killed, but they're wearing the latest Gore-Tex and Thinsulate technology to keep warm, not fur. Is it better to wear synthetic petroleum by-product than something natural? By extension, do you avoid wearing leather and eating meat? Personally I refuse to be browbeaten by PETA's propaganda and shame-on-you arguments. The issue is complicated, at least for me. Isn't it?

Derek The issue is complicated for me, too. I eat meat. I wear leather shoes. Like many people, I draw the line at wearing fur. It's hypocrisy, with caveats. I was raised eating meat; it's a biological and cultural habit that's hard to beat. Nobody is raised wearing fur, with the possible exceptions of the Gabor sisters. I am no Gabor. Anyway, I don't think there's shame in confessing to some hypocrisy, and then drawing a line beyond which I will not step: fur. If someone wants to protect and promote indigenous cultures, it seems to me there are many, many better ways of doing it than buying a mink coat. As for trapping: As far as I can tell, between 15% and 30% of Canadian furs are trapped in the wild; that means that most furs are farmed. The benefactors of the industry are not indigenous peoples but mainly manufacturers, magazines that sell ad space to furriers, and stores that carry furs and store them in summer. Lagerfeld is not designing fur to be green. Lagerfeld is at least honest about it: He recognizes that culture connects cruelty and glamour. But the Fur Council! They say that a person who doesn't buy fur is anti-environmental, as if wool, cotton and silk aren't all degradable. My fave fur argument: Canadians don't trap endangered species. How marvelous! Furriers obey the law, then say that their lawfulness is a selling point. It's like a fast-food chain saying, "We don't use asbestos in burgers!" I'm glad they don't. But their burgers are still distasteful.



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/life/story.html?id=2304855#ixzz0Zo6pNBPk
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.