Fashion Opinion
“Those beasts would kill us if they could”
At the beginning of the term, Varsity ran a full-spread fashion editorial on fur. A savvy nod to current trends, or a PETA-worthy target? Charlotte Wu, current fashion editor, explains.
That is, according to Karl Lagerfeld. The drolly eccentric designer behind Chanel argues that fur is a justifiable part of fashion – and defence. Varsity Fashion’s researchers are yet to get back to us on annual figures of rabbit/human casualties, but it’s sure that when clothes get this strokably cosy, there’s going to be a fight for them. Ok, it’s silly to be flippant about the realities of the fur trade, but in fashion, it seems there is no winter without fur. This year, it made an unsurprising appearance at the New York, London and Milan fashion weeks with new tweaks; Karl’s concern for human protection continued in the form of motorcycle helmets covered with mink and chinchilla, while Dolce & Gabbana sent out sleek coats in fantastical shades of magenta. If there are two regulars at the fall/winter shows you can count on, it’s fur and PETA. After all, isn’t controversy just another way of saying bad publicity? Anna Wintour, the editor of US Vogue and doyenne of the entire industry, famously continues to wear fur despite being pelted by protesters with weapons ranging from a dead raccoon to a tofu pie.
We suppose the justification for the raccoon was that it wasn’t killed purposely to be flung at a runway show (or even in self-defence). The thing is, though, that a lot of people who qualm at wearing animal fur, don’t seem to get quite as hot under the collars about leather, or even crocodile skin. Most are perfectly happy to eat animal products. And so it’s hard to believe that it doesn’t come partly down to a belt or a bag (or a steak) looking less like something that might once have been alive; a mature extension of the way schoolchildren always donate the proceeds of fund-raisers to charities like Labrador Puppies With Eye Infections (LPWEI) over organisations to, say, alleviate world debt and poverty. (The panda as a species cashed in massively on this, having developed no evolutionary tactics for survival except being cute enough that people would mind if they all ceased to do it.) Animals grew furs to keep them warm. We grew brains and opposable thumbs and the ability to take it from them. Don’t tell me that that’s been humanity’s worst crime.
It’s undeniable that fur is sometimes farmed. It’s undeniable that the truth is sometimes ugly. But while readily accepting that it’s not ethical, or excusable, it just doesn’t seem to explain away the rage which fur incites. Is it just a little, to go (eagerly) back to the wisdom of Karl, that “Fur isn’t murder. But it is expensive”? The opulence and ostentatiousness that the wearing of fur is redolent of, the old-school glamour and excessiveness, reached a provocative extreme in Fendi’s 24-carat gold coated furs in 2008.
It does seem strange that furs should become so especially ubiquitous now in a year when we’re all trying to tighten the Vuitton purse-strings, buckle the waist belts another notch, and concoct outfits from kitchen products. The high street’s been bristling with them for months, and more and more inherited pieces are making their way out of the storage boxes to which they had been consigned by a now fading collective guilt. In some ways, they are even being embraced as an alternative to the disposable Primark-culture of shopping – a vintage fur can last up to 100 years, making it an ecological if not eco-friendly choice. To complicate the issue further, The British Fur Trade Association published findings that fake fur was responsible for 50 per cent of our toxic nitrous oxide emissions. It’s not easy to come down one way or another on the issue anymore – are you for the environment or its inhabitants? Economy or extravagance?
For fashion, however, the re-emergence of furs right now isn’t thoughtless, routine or even controversy-baiting. It’s partaking in the revival of that dark mystique of the forties; the impossible wartime elegance and escapism which made-do –and-mended, but refused to settle for less than the maximum effect, which is resonant in the post-recession shellshock, and it captures the optimism that hovered over the crossing into this new decade, in which as the designers recognise, we’re desirous of lasting, tangible items infused with memories, experience, and esprit de corps. And doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and furry inside?
Topics: Environment, Fashion
