Animal fur as a status symbol takes another blow as enlightened fashion houses trade fox for faux.
“This article is not for you if you are feeling economical or momentarily poor,” begins a 1929 Vogue article titled, “The Fur Story of 1929.” The bible of couture goes on to implore women to go without jewels, pocket money, or every-day clothes – heck, go hungry! – but never be thrifty with fur ... because the fur you wear will reveal to everyone “the kind of woman you are and the kind of life you lead.”
Ugh. What kind of animals are we?? Well thankfully, we are animals who seem able to evolve in terms of ethics and compassion, as evidenced by a welcome new direction in the fashion industry. While for way too long animal fur has been seen as a sign of fancy living, increasing awareness of animal rights has turned it into more of a status liability than a luxury.
We've already seen Armani, Calvin Klein, Givenchy, Gucci, Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, and Tom Ford, among others, remove real fur from their collections. But one influential label has been a hold out – Versace. With a lavish array of species being sported on the catwalk, the influential house of Versace has long revelled in the kind of excess and glamour epitomized by flashy mink and the like.
But times they are a-changing, and it can't come a minute too soon. In an interview in The Economist's 1843 magazine, Donatella Versace said that she would stop using use real animal fur designs for her family's fashion house.
“Fur? I’m out of that,” Versace said. “I don’t want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn’t feel right.”
Signs of status in fashion have always evolved; it's about time that wearing dead animals for the sake of glamour was relegated to the history books under the vast "human folly" section. Now the fashionable can wear faux fur as a statement of compassionate luxury, with a new message about “the kind of woman you are and the kind of life you lead.”