Fur at Gucci

After ethical exile from the fashion world, a ban on fur farming in Britain and a decades long campaign against it, pelts, coats and stoles were back on the runways for this season,  and alive and well (in at least once sense) in the collections of European designers. Apart from the ever-steady Stella McCartney, following in mum and dad’s footsteps, it’s difficult to name a designer who hasn’t bedecked at least one model in miles of mink for AW09. Givenchy. Dolce & Gabbana. Versace. Marni. Rykiel. Gaultier. Gucci. Alexander McQueen. All of them paraded pelt after pelt down their runways whilst showcasing their Fall 09 collections, and the trend looks set to continue well into 2010.

The collections achieved their aim: to cause a fuss. Fashion websites and magazines all over the world have splashed the new collections across the front pages, and this betrays perhaps the main reason for the return of fur: money. Fur creates controversy, which creates publicity, which creates sales. Lots of articles about how a designer is using fur means lots of pictures of their clothes, lots of links to websites, lots of fashionistas desperately flocking to the nearest outlet. In this desperate climate, money is becoming more important than ethics.

The fur trade knows this. A rapidly growing business which grosses over thirteen billion dollars worldwide, to expand further it needs to overcome the reluctance of both the public and designers to associate with fur.  The Times reported earlier this year that a number of fur traders were courting designers in a bid to persuade them to include fur in their collections. An anonymous British designer told the newspaper that “[the fur companies] offer you a trip to their fur centre in the country, it’s a nice jolly and you don’t have to pay for anything. Although you would have to pay for materials if the clients ordered all the garments after seeing them on the catwalk, the samples are all free. The sponsorship is worth thousands of pounds.” A free trip amongst swathes of cutbacks and down-sizing is surely bound to impress. Other traders, meanwhile, have gone a step further. Denmark-based companies Saga Furs and Kopenhagen Fur have both provided expensive furs free of charge to London designers, providing a cost-effective way to create a stir on the catwalk. According to the British Fur Trade Association, sales are now buoyant in the capital, despite the city being one of the most anti-fur in Europe.

But how have the formerly Birkenstock-loving, fair-trade wearing, boho-chic adoring fashionista public been persuaded to drop their ethical beliefs in favour of donning dead animals? Any fashion fan knows full well the arguments against fur thanks to PETA’s high profile “I’d rather go naked than wear…” campaign and their invading of various fur friendly runway shows. According to PETA and various independent researchers, animals bred for their fur suffer incredibly cramped and filthy conditions which leads to their extreme distress. Many animals are so distressed by their environment that they “self mutilate” or pace their cages endlessly. Animals kept together in cages often fight viciously. On top of all of this, the methods which furriers use to kill their stock are often incredibly cruel, taking a long time to take effect and causing a huge amount of pain. All this has been well publicised thanks to PETA and the UK government’s ban on fur farms.

One of PETA's anti-fur campaigns

Designers and fur companies have spent masses of time and money distancing themselves from this image. The International Fur Trade Federation’s website is full of crisp, clean images which wouldn’t look out of place in any left wing newspaper supplement or on any fair-trade produce wrapper. Indigeneous peoples of the Arctic and South America sit grinning serenely amongst immaculate scenes of nature. “Furbearer populations are abundant and healthy,” intones the opening sequence, smugly. “Habitats are preserved and property is protected.” The Federation dubs itself a “responsible trader” and sees its business as providing a sustainable and ethical way of supporting disenfranchised peoples and keeping their traditions alive, despite their own figures betraying that 80% of all fur is farmed according to modern, Western methods.

Designers have made an obvious effort to put across this ethical whitewashing of fur in their collections. Fur is used in soft cuts, a striking difference from the bold lines and power dressing with which it was previously aligned. Fur is draped over traditional boho smocks or ethnic prints, teamed with curved jewelry and an au naturel look. Fur, the designers seem to be saying, is natural. And isn’t natural good?

A shallow argument which nevertheless seems to be winning over a public eager to indulge in guilt-free luxury in a time of budgeting, tightening belts and empty purses. The re-emergence of fur as material of choice exposes the true nature of the fashion world. It is ethical when ethical is chic. It cares when caring is cool. Wearing fur – even fur which has been offered daily hot baths and fed gourmet meat – is still to call upon an animal to die for you to look good. It is one of the most self obsessed, shallow things one can do, and the fact that the fashion world has embraced it en masse is therefore really no surprise.