“ Tee Shirts: Even Wren Art Direction & Styling: Jess Evelyn Leroy Photographer: Mike Mabes Faux-Leather Belt: Matt & Nat Model: Sarah Mann
©Animal Defenders International • www.adiusa.org
Animal Defenders International (ADI) investigated the conditions in a random sample of 30 fur farms in Finland, producing mink and fox skins for the worldwide industry. What ADI discovered were foxes with deformed or missing limbs, terrible cuts, injuries, open wounds, loss of tails, obvious signs of untreated infection or disease in animals’ eyes, noses and ears, foxes with visible gum masses, sometimes entirely engulfing the teeth, dilapidated cages with sharp wire and mesh protruding into animals’ living space, likely to cause injury, empty, unclean and broken water bowls, behavioral abnormalities, indicative of psychological damage, cannibalism, corpses eaten by worms in the cages of animals still alive, the list goes on...
“
This investigation exposes the terrible suffering that is part and parcel of the fur industry. Foxes and mink are wild animals but in fur farms, they cannot cope with the unnatural environment they find themselves in. Worse still, the conditions in these farms are awful: their short, miserable lives are spent in squalid surroundings full of fear and distress, suffering injuries, infection and deformities. All for an unnecessary product for which a variety of alternatives are available. It is time for designers who use fur, and the people who wear it, to take responsibility for the way that the product they are wearing has been produced. Matt Rossell, Campaigns Director - Animal Defenders International
T i m e l e s s Luxurious Responsible
”
Image: Fur farm in Parikkala, Finland. This photograph was published by the Finnish animal rights organisation Oikeutta eläimille (“Justice for Animals”) after an undercover investigation of Finnish fur farms in 2011.
“Fashion To Die For” by Tara Jacoby
In the s u m m er of 2 0 1 1 , PI N NAC L E : Rei nvent The Icon teamed up with BUSY B EAV E R B U T TO N C O a nd des ig n le gend judges MARC BOUWER & TO D D O L D H A M to fi nd a nd rewa rd a r t i st s a nd designers who had someth i ng to put on thei r chest s ab out fu r. M a rc and Todd selected a top-ten, then PI N NAC L E re aders chose the top -three designs...
1 st Plac e
ALYSSA DIAZ 2 nd Plac e
KYLE OPHEIM 3 rd Plac e
ROB BIGWOOD Corresponding Designs Counter-Clockwise from Top
chIna
by Jill Robinson MBE According to Xinhua Chinese News Agency, China had purchased 1.5 million fur products by the end of 2010, which amounted to about two thirds of global production. The Chinese leather Association claimed that three to four fur products are owned among every 100 people and that no less than 400 million Chinese people have the economic resources to consume fur products. In May of this year an announcement was made that the Shengbang-Copenhagen Fur Academy had opened in Dalian, China to “introduce the first grade training course to Chinese artisans”. Torben Nielsen, the Managing Director of Copenhagen Fur, the world’s leading fur skin auction house, said the Chinese fur trade accounts for more than half of the world total and last year Copenhagen Fur Group’s sales touched US$1 billion as many internationally famed clothing brands chose fur materials and designs of this company.
“We expect the transportation of mink skins from Denmark to China/Hong Kong to be much more efficient than today,” said Nielsen. In order to manage the increasing demand for mink skins imported to China from Denmark, Kopenhagen Furs has partnered with international shipping and logistical corporation Damco, which includes a singular cold storage warehouse in Hong Kong, through which all pelts will pass. The biggest importer of mainland furs, Hong Kong, now apparently handles 70 percent of the trade in raw furs and 80 percent of the world’s processed furs according to a United States Department of Agriculture report. Timothy Everest, coowner of a fur trading company, Cyril Murkin, with offices in London and Hong Kong and which supplies fashion houses such as Fendi, Dolce & Gabbana, Armani and Jil Sander, said mainland demand and supply was driving the market. “Hong Kong is the fur manufacturing hub of the world. The skins come to Hong Kong, they go into China for manufacturing then they come back into Hong Kong for shipment elsewhere. Some garments are then sold on to China.”
US Department of Agriculture “Global Agriculture Information Network” report issued last year, in the space of just 10 years, the mainland’s fur processing industry became the largest in the world. While the fur industry remains intent on developing the market, more people in China are protesting the cruelty inherent within the trade and highlighting the environmental damage as a result of the chemicals used to cure the fur. An international art and design competition “Design Against Fur”, held in China in September 2010 saw Chinese college students providing more than 12,000 works to demonstrate their opposition to buying fur products. The competition has attracted millions of entries over the past four years, that aims to reduce the number of potential buyers of fur. “We cannot stop rich people buying fur, but I hope we can at least change the minds of university students, who are potential buyers, from doing this in the future,” said Zhang Yang, Design Against Fur’s Chinese Regional Director. The theme of the competition in 2010 was rabbit, pointing out that one rabbit fur coat sees the slaughter of 3040 animals. The winner of the Most Popular award, Zhang Qian, a 20 year old student with the Shanghai Film Art Academy, entitled her work “Please don’t take off my clothes”, depicting a rabbit begging not to be skinned. ACTAsia and local animal protection groups also recently launched a public awareness campaign urging the Chinese public to stop buying fur products stained with appalling animal suffering. Their campaign saw Sina.com, the Chinese equivalent to Google, backing the campaign with a special anti-fur page and going live on the most popular social network (Chinese ‘Twitter’)with almost 1.5 million subscribers.
As the anti fur campaigns grow, so does the public alarm surrounding the abuse to the victims of the trade which sees mink, foxes, raccoons, rabbits, cats and dogs slaughtered in China to make fur coats, trims and trinkets. The Humane Society estimates that at least 2 million domestic dogs and cats are killed in China each year for their fur. Many of Everest who is also spokesperson for the Hong Kong Fur these animals come from people who keep a few dogs or cats Federation estimates that 100 to 200 million people on the in appalling conditions for sale to the fur traders. German mainland are regular buyers of fur products. According to the shepherd dogs and other long-haired breeds are favored, Images: Animals Asia The Humane Society of the United States
Model: Emily Wilson Photographer: Brennan Cavanaugh Wardrobe/Human Hair Accessories: VPL by Victoria Bartlett Shoes: Olsen Haus Makeup: Brain Duprey Hair: Nozomi Sawa Stylist: Joshua Katcher
since their hair resembles that of wild animals. The British organization, Respect for Animals, estimates that at least half a million short-haired domestic cats are raised in China on farms, specifically to supply the fur trade. Some dogs and cats are strays, rounded up by the traders. Some may even have been domestic pets.
by big fashion houses in the US often contained dog, cat, or raccoon dog fur.
SPCA Israel and the International Anti-Fur Coalition recently exposed the false marketing of Chinese products by While Timothy Everest maintains that fur bearing an investigation of fake fur that was sold in Israel by prominent animals are not cruelly treated “Animals are not bludgeoned fashion chains; forensic examination of the products showed to death and animals are not skinned alive”, investigations by they contained dog and rabbit fur. welfare groups such as Animals Asia portray a rather more sobering reality of the trade. Inadequate labelling regulations compound these A recent investigation of China’s “live animal markets” in January 2011 saw investigators noting that cats, dogs and rabbits were bludgeoned to death either with wooden clubs, rocks, or wooden slabs, or in bags as they writhed in agony inside. Their bodies are then often thrown into a machine which literally strips and separates their fur before being dried and sold. On fur farms, no animal welfare regulations exist to protect any fur bearing animal, and farmers house and slaughter them however they see fit. According to PETA fur farmers say that it is easier to get the skin off an animal who’s alive and warm than one who is dead. While the raising and slaughter of companion animals in China and elsewhere in Asia for their fur may not be illegal, several countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and recently the EU, have banned the importation and trade of products containing dog and cat fur. In spite of this, the trade continues, with products containing dog and cat fur often mislabeled as false fur (or “faux fur”), or as originating from other species, to confuse regulators and consumers. The Humane Society has investigated many such cases, and found that products labelled as “Faux fur” and marketed
issues. However, it has recently been reported that previous regulations seeing garments containing fur valued at less than US$150 not requiring a fur label have now been replaced with The Truth In Fur Labeling Act, signed by President Obama in December of 2010, requiring ALL garments containing fur to be labeled.
On 12 April 2007 the European Parliament voted in favor of a ban across the European Union on the marketing, import, export and sale of products containing dog or cat fur. The ban became effective from 1 January 2009. This ban follows a public outcry from EU citizens after items made of dog and cat fur were found to be on sale in EU countries. However, in Asia the fur of dogs and cats is still widely sold. Animals Asia states that much of the fur is shaved and dyed in bright colors which bears little resemblance to real fur, thus confusing a public eager to buy coats with brightly colored collars and cuffs, or trinkets to adorn mobile phones or bags. In virtually ever instance of asking buyers whether they realize that the fur is real, they will invariably reply that they believe their purchases to be fake. Information cards handed out by Animals Asia reflect the reality of the fur industry in China and Hong Kong by showing a dog and cat appealing to the purchaser “are you wearing my coat?”• Jill Robinson MBE is the Founder & CEO of Animals Asia Foundation, www.animalsasia.org
“Aesthetics are often regarded as an
autonomous sphere, removed from the demands of morality.”
– Lars Svendsen “A Philosophy of Evil”
Image: Born Free USA / Respect for Animals
Aesthetics, like art and fashion, are often seen as existing outside of the realm of ethical and moral consequences. Through aestheticization, terrible things – consider a character like Cruella Deville – can become attractive. The fashion realm is the perfect example of this where the fur object presents an aestheticized disconnect from the reality of fur production . The perceived “good” is the enjoyment of the aesthetic “object”, and rationalizes the “evil” of the production process and suffering involved in making it. On a deeper level, the recent obsession among rock-stars, hipsters and fashionistas with indigenous and native people’s aesthetics in general – from hair extensions and jewelry made from feathers to Navajo prints, fur, shearling, and fox-tail key-chains to full-on feather headdresses – speaks of a large-scale desire to commune with nature and animals. People want to embrace the aesthetic of being wild, free, a nature warrior, and one with wild nature. The intention of this trend is good – after all, we did evolve over millions of years in nature with animals, but in a modern consumer culture, where horrible production processes are hidden and obscured by advertising and sleek PR, the relationship we have to the raccoon whose fur is ripped
off couldn’t be further from one that honors her or represents any legitimate connection to wild nature. It is a contradiction. I would go as far as saying that this aesthetic appropriation isn’t just a lie, but because of its insincerity or ability to live up to what it claims to represent (communion with nature), it is an incredibly perverted appropriation of traditional native and indigenous people’s aesthetics. It does to animals exactly the opposite of what it intends to visually represent. Even considering animals as economic units of production (as opposed to valid individuals with their own interests) is where animal exploitation begins for fashion professionals. A mink is not an individual… she is but one unit of a textile supply. She is part of a machine that keeps her from being wild, that smothers her every instinct and desire with physical and psychological anguish, and that ultimately erases her existence.
Model: Emily Wilson Photographer: Brennan Cavanaugh Wardrobe/Human Hair Accessories: VPL by Victoria Bartlett Shoes: Olsen Haus Makeup: Brain Duprey Hair: Nozomi Sawa Stylist: Joshua Katcher
“I never saw the use of fur as a necessity in fashion. To me the whole concept is really grotesque and I can’t understand it even in the smallest of ways. The production and use for creating fur is so inhumane, we have so many alternatives (and I am not talking about synthetic furs) in fashion for creating warmth but I know that this is not just the issue, people see it as luxury, but how can one see the death of animals as a luxury? Be creative.” -Natalie Rae Richardson Fashion Designer, www.NatRae.com Photographer: Sean Michael Creative Director: Rob Philips Clothes: Natalie Rae Richardson
S T AT E OF THE
TRADE sour ce: antifur coalition.or g
Through media, social networking sites, leaflets, street campaigns and educational and creative initiatives, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the reality behind the glitzy PR efforts of the fur industry. A growing number of international fashion industry professionals and a groundswell of young, fresh talent are all moving beyond fur. Many department stores and major chain stores from NYC’s legendary Henri Bendel to Overstock.com have adopted fur free policies and the number continues to increase. Many stores from Barney’s to Urban Outfitters and Strawberry who have been documented selling real fur labeled as faux are monitored and held accountable. More countries are banning the import of seal products which will eventually make seal hunting economically unsustainable. Undercover investigations of mink and fox farms have brought critical attention to the fur industry in Norway, Finland and Denmark. As a result, Oslo Fashion Week, the most important fashion event in Norway has adopted a fur free policy, and significant mainstream media attention in Denmark and Finland has been met with public outrage. Fur traders running out of arguments are now trying to promote their industry through greenwashing. Many people are not fooled and realize how this production relies on the use of toxic chemicals and other pollutants responsible for several environmental large-scale contaminations.
Current Legislation
Several countries have already taken decisions against the fur industry: • Also known as “Leg-Hold Traps“, cruel steel jaw traps have been banned from being sold or manufactured anywhere in Taiwan. • The Belgian JEP , which stands for ‘Jury for Ethical Practices in Advertisements‘ judged that the ‘European Fur Breeder’s Association (EFBA)’ is misleading consumers by marketing fur as green. The Belgian JEP states that fur, in reality, does have negative repercussions for the environment and that the ads are misleading. March 2011 • Austria—Outright ban on fur farming throughout the entire nation since 2004. • Croatia— A 2007 Animal Protection Act bans fur farming with a 10 year phase-out period.
• U.S.A.—The Truth In Fur Labeling Act was signed in 2010, requiring all fur garments to be labeled accurately, closing problematic loopholes. No federal laws regulate the keeping or killing of cage-raised fur-bearing animals. No states have banned fur farming, but some states prohibit keeping foxes in captivity because of concerns about disease transmission to native wildlife. California has housing requirements for mink and fox that make fur farming of these species cost prohibitive. Wisconsin and Utah are currently the two top fur farming states. • All seal products are banned in the USA, Mexico and Croatia and it is now illegal to place commercial seal products on the market in all 27 countries of the EU. Even Russia is calling for an end of seal hunting.
Organizations and politicians work actively on getting laws passed in several countries.
These are a few current projects:
• Denmark—The Danish Parliament voted for a ban on fox farming with a phase-out period. Welfare regulations for mink farms remain weak.
• Canadian senator Mac Harb proposed a bill to end the seal hunt in Canada.
• Ireland—The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, put forward by the Green Party in the Republic of Ireland, was voted down by the Government parties. There are 6 mink farms and 1 fox farm in the Republic of Ireland at present. Fur farming became illegal in Northern Ireland in 2003.
• A bill to ban the import, export and sale of fur, which was first initiated by MK Nitzan Horowitz and then taken over by MK Ronit Tirosh will likely make Israel the first fur free country.
• Italy—As of 2008, all mink farms in Italy must allow swimming, more space, and pens on the ground. This will likely lead to the closure of all Italian mink farms. • The Netherlands— The first country in the world to ban fox farming in 1995, with a phase out period of 10 years. Chinchilla farming was prohibited in 1997. In 2006, an MP with the Socialist Party submitted a private members bill for a complete ban on fur farming to the Dutch Council of State. • New Zealand—Allows fur farming of ferrets (between 2 and 5 farms exist in the entire country), but prohibits the import of mink. This effectively bans mink farming in New Zealand. • Sweden—Fox farming is no longer economically viable due to welfare measures. Since 2000, all fox farms have been shut down. The Social Democratic Party and the Green Party are currently supporting legislation to ban all fur farming. • Switzerland—There there are no fur farms in Switzerland due to prohibitive welfare legislation. • United Kingdom—Under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act of 2000, England and Wales banned fur farming completely. All fur farms in England and Wales had to be shut down by January 1, 2003. Northern Ireland and Scotland both banned fur farming shortly afterwards. There are now no fur farms anywhere in the U.K.
• In Ireland, Cieran Perry proposed a motion to ban the import and sale of real fur which passed successfully in the jurisdiction of Dublin City Council. Fingal County Council also passed the same motion which was proposed by Cllr. David McGuinness: it passed unanimously gaining cross-party support. Other councils are likely to follow soon. A formal letter has also been written to the Irish government, asking for a review of the current legislation. • Activists and a city council candidate announced a campaign to turn the city of West Hollywood, California into the first fur-free city in the United States.
Challenges Continue • Copenhagen Furs, the world’s largest fur organization, has opened a warehouse and fur design academy in China where no animal welfare regulations exist, to meet a growing demand for fur in China. • Canada’s controversial seal hunt has found a market in China with the largest demand for Seal pelts, meat, and oil. • Finnish fur sales were reported higher than ever at the Spring 2011 auctions, at prices higher than ever. • Despite growing outcry and evidence of greenwashing, the industry continues to push the myth that fur is “eco-friendly”, responsible, ethical, and in good taste. Images: Nettverk for dyrs frihet (Network for Animal Freedom)
REALITY versus MARKETING Humane...
Responsible... Daring... Timeless... Luxurious... Sustainable... Warm... SEXY...
This is just a sampling of the lexical palette being used by fur PR organizations, advertisers, and marketers to paint an alluring but opaque picture over the reality of fur production. Then there’s the visual bombardment; models with unobtainable beauty and severe dispositions seethe with mystique, drenched in skins and pelts in nearly every editorial story, without a hint of candor or an inkling of the reality behind these fiction-infused garments - these fabrications. Could it be that crushing an animal to death – so that his or her ribs “can be heard popping as the trapper discusses what its pelt is worth”, as was observed by an undercover investigator interviewed in a recent Daily Mail article, is worthy of the Origin Assured label, the fur trade’s equivalent to the organic label that offers ‘assurances on the humane treatment of animals’.
The Daily Mail article discussed the runway shows of Paris Fashion Week, and how fur is everywhere, due largely in part to a multimillion dollar damage-control-cum-PR campaign telling people what they want to hear in order to enjoy soft, fluffy fur, guilt-free.
“This year’s autumn and winter collections are completely orientated around fur,” says Shelly Vella, Fashion Director at Cosmopolitan magazine. Fur is not just back — it’s everywhere. “The fur industry has re-branded itself as the ethical alternative to ‘fast fashion’. I think this is complete nonsense. People are losing their morality.” In a recent undercover investigation into “ethical” sources of fur discussed in the article, animals are shown being killed in unimaginable ways – yet this is business-as-usual. In an Orwellian fashion, the industry has set out to brand itself as the exact opposite of the story the making of fur tells:
John Bartlett, the renowned, award-winning designer who sits on the CFDA Board of Directors, said in response to the article, entitled “Is ‘ethical fur’ the fashion industry’s most cynical con yet?” by Danny Penman:
Fur is being re-branded as ethical, green, supporting indigenous craftspeople, and animal friendly. At the same time, the industry capitalizes on the perception that it is rebellious and bold to wear fur among the wholesome, flavorless, anti-fur do-gooders. The industry now favors a portrayal of furs and skins as ‘natural, and bio-degradable’ materials that are the ‘responsible choice’.
“I love my industry with all of my heart, but I love animals more [and] just don’t understand how designers can make the ethical disconnect and use fur. The fur industry is environmentally damaging as well as cruel beyond comprehension.”
For an industry that the World Bank once ranked as the world’s fifth biggest toxic metal polluter, and for an industry that time and time again is caught red-handed treating animals with such indifference, fur is neither “responsible” nor a simple “choice”.
Image: Nettverk for dyrs frihet (Network for Animal Freedom)
Tee Shirts: Even Wren Art Direction & Styling: Jess Evelyn Leroy Photographer: Mike Mabes Model: Sarah Mann
What’s more, a new study contradicts the Fur Council of Canada and European Fur Breeders Association (EFBA)’s absurd “Fur Is Green” claims. The research and consultancy organization CE Delft published the study: Fur: harmful to the environment: “To produce 1 kg of fur requires more than 11 animals. In the course of its lifetime, mink eat about 50 kg of feed, resulting in 563 kg of feed required per kg of fur. Compared with textiles, fur has a higher impact per kg in 17 of the 18 environmental categories, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions. In many cases, fur has impacts that are a factor 2 to 28 higher than textiles, even when lower-bound values are taken for various links in the production chain.” The marketing strategy employed in the “Fur is Green” website and Facebook Group attempts to soften the harsh reality of fur production, claiming that because fur is a natural material, it is therefore sustainable. The description on their Facebook page says, “The fur trade is tired of the lies and insults spread by self-appointed “animal-rights” groups; we’ve had enough of propaganda that slanders honest, hard-working people and misleads the public about the true ecological sense of using fur.” What they seem to leave out is the fact that fur is flesh which naturally rots when dead, and it needs to be preserved with chemicals and refrigerated in warm weather. Unlike antiquated tanneries that once used urine, feces, and brains in the tanning process, modern fur production requires a soup of toxic chemicals. In December of 2010, Eco Aid by Manfred Krautter, based in Hamburg, tested several samples of fur and found 93% of them were “highly contaminated” to “very highly contaminated - damaging to health”. The chemicals found included: • • • • • • • • • • •
Low and medium volatile and organic compounds (VOC and SVOC) Pentachlorophenol – PCP Azo dyes Resp. p-aminoazobenzene Formaldehyde Chromium VI Dimethyl furmerate TBT and other tin organics 2-(thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole (TCMTB), 4-chloro-m-cresol, o-phenylphenol
Most of us who are opposed to fur production have nothing financial to gain from wanting animals stuck on fur farms or trapped in the wild to be free. On the other hand, the
fur industry’s entire intention is to make money and keep up the demand for their product. This is crucial to remember when the viewpoints on this issue are considered balanced, equal and opposing. Treehugger.com recently reported on the industry’s greenwashing and the comments section was swarmed by vocal individuals for and against fur. But not unlike the models who were revealed to have been hired by the fur industry to act like pro-fur protesters in Amsterdam last year, we mustn’t always trust those commentators who so fervently defend profits and “personal choice” over legitimate concerns about ecology and cruelty. The fur organizations that represent farmers and trappers put a dollar sign on the head of each of the more-than-50 million individual animals that are killed every year, for a product that is ultimately unnecessary and inherently cruel. Fur is Green? More like ‘Fur Is GREED’. This campaign is so ridiculous that the fur industry may as well claim that their end-product is ‘not tested on animals‘. Remember, these fur organizations are marking millions, and stand to lose millions. This is their one and only purpose, and they will do anything and everything to maintain those profits, including feigning concern for the environment, animals, and indigenous cultures. Considering the fact that fur farms and fur production pollutes water creating toxic algae, as revealed in a recent letter from the David Suziki Foundation, the only thing green about fur is American dollars, and toxic sludge•
“Fur is as much a no-no as ever. It’s sexually dodgy, feels funny, and reeks when it’s rained on.” -Olivier Lalanne Editor In Chief, Vogue Homme
“The fur industry has
re-branded itself as the ethical
alternative to ‘fast fashion’.
I think this is complete nonsense. People are
losing their morality.”
– Shelly Vella. Fashion Director, Cosmopolitan Images: Nettverk for dyrs frihet (Network for Animal Freedom)
SIT, NOIR Nr.27. Acrylic and spraypaint on canvas. 2011 www.sitnie.com
“W
ith ‘NOIR’ SIT returns to his bold black & whites, examining the troubled relation between the animal kingdom and mankind even closer. This time around his work is focused on the magnificent beauty of the beast and the way it is used to serve vanity.”
Model: Emily Wilson Photographer: Brennan Cavanaugh Wardrobe/Human Hair Accessories: VPL by Victoria Bartlett Shoes: Olsen Haus Makeup: Brain Duprey Hair: Nozomi Sawa Stylist: Joshua Katcher
“Fur is one of nature’s most alluring gifts.” – Kopenhagen Fur
“Be proud of where you come from” declares the
“Origin Assured” campaign website - the whitewashed counterpart to the greenwashed “Fur Is Green” ads. The ad doesn’t even make sense – “you” are not the fur coat. This illustrates the incredible disconnect between the fur coat object and what fur actually is. The source of fur is nothing to be proud of. This international fur industry campaign is not only obscuring the gruesome and inhumane treatment of animals used for their pelts, but it is also calling for a defiant sense of pride in wearing fur (cashing in on apathy and the rebel-identity – making the fur garment part of your essential being, as opposed to part of an animal. And who doesn’t want to be proud of themselves or avoid justifying their consumer choices? Why pride? Simple – like most PR campaigns that mask a cruel production processes, OA encourages consumers to prioritize and stand by their “personal choice” and ignore the perspective of the animal.
The pursuit of knowledge is stereotyped as unsexy in our culture is because the more we
know, the less pleasure we can derive from traditional consumer activities with an unethical base. In other words,
shopping and consuming starts to mean something completely
different when a holistic comprehension of objects and activities is pursued. It turns traditional economics on its head, and it is not ‘good for the economy’ because we might decide not to purchase something based on the story of how it came to be. This conflicts with the storytelling (PR, marketing, and advertising) and economic interests of those is power, so it’s best that they continually reinforce a pseudo-rebellion against an ostensible culture of dogooders. Translation: Fur is defiant and bold•
Image: Born Free USA / Respect for Animals
Photographer: Walter Sassard Model: Emily Wilson Makeup: Bp Carmouché Hair: Bettina May Styling: Joshua Katcher Faux Fur: Imposter Vegan Motorcycle Jacket: April 77 Earrings, Bracelets & Necklaces: Dirty Librarian Chains “Fake” Pin: PINNACLE
Young club kids, party promoters, DJs, photographers and a huge chunk of current nightlife luminaries in cities across the world from New York to Berlin to Tokyo have wholeheartedly embraced fur as the premiere symbol of defiance in the face of morality. Even if it’s just a foxtail here, or a coyote collar or rabbit hat there, one of the most alluring aspects of fur in this moment is that it is perceived as being controversial. It invokes villainous power. This is not a deterrent among people who weren’t around in the anti-fur 90s, when being antifur was defiant and cool. They know fur has a vexed past, and in a confused desperation to express rebelliousness, many young people seeking recognition value fur because it’s one of the most tangible, controversial objects rejecting what is perceived as wholesome values. Part of the failing of the anti-fur movement is its earnestness. It has provided the easiest thing to rebel against and fails to articulate that people who defend animals (not the monotonos, old fur industry) are the real rebels. There is nothing defiant about wearing fur. The fur industry is aesthetically, economically and politically passé. There’s nothing new about fur... it’s the same stiff pelts as always. It’s easy to ignore where fur comes from or that it was once attached to a living, breathing, feeling animal that needed to be confined or trapped and killed in a way that did not damage the pelt. Fox, raccoon, and even coyote-tail key chains are one popular fur trend among hipsters and cool-kids. We can blame it on the popularity of Max’s costume in Where the Wild Things Are or Peter Pan‘s lost-boys, we can blame it on our soft-spot for childhood nostalgia from Davey Crockett raccoon-tail caps to playing Cowboys and Indians or Super Mario Brothers 3, or we can just blame it on an apathetic youth culture that attempts to gobble up any bit of twisted symbology that fills an desperate desire to be wild or have contact with nature and animals. Nightlife photographers are often drawn to those whose visual presence is the loudest. Since fur is a loud visual object, it’s fair to say that in the age of Facebook and Tumblr, getting photographed and recognized and tagged and seen while on the dance floor, having fun and looking controversial is more valuable, and certainly easier, than making an informed and ethically motivated decision to wear faux or be fur-free. Accessing power for good (being a hero) requires knowledge, consistency, discipline and a cause. It’s not easy to do. But being a villain and wielding evil power is so appealing because it provides access to that power with no need to be rational, have purpose, knowledge, or understanding. Power over animals is often the easiest form of expressing power – animals can not organize, effectively communicate their plight, or rally for change - although they do cry out and anticipate pain and fear and struggle to escape, yet most people do not see this as valid forms of saying “no” or “stop”•
“The image here is 18 chinchillas packed into the small frame of the wood block. The title, x10 refers to the average number of these animals required to make a fur coat: 180. The “drip” felt shapes create an unpleasant reference to the by-products of the fur coat-making process.” Art: Christopher K. Lees, X10. Cedar, synthetic felt, ink. 2011 Fox image: Nettverk for dyrs frihet (Network for Animal Freedom)
REINVENT THE ICON | VOLUME iii www.ReinventTheIcon.com Founder/Editor:
Joshua Katcher Produced by:
Art Director:
Kyle Opheim Contributing Photographers:
Brennan Cavanaugh, Mikes Mabes, Sean Michael, Walter Sassard, Featured Designers:
Dirty Librarian Chains, Matt & Nat, Olsen Haus, Marlena Pavich, Natalie Rae Richardson, VPL by Victoria Bartlett, Even Wren, April 77, Imposter Makeup:
Brian Duprey, Bp Carmouche Hair:
Bettina May, Nozomi Sawa Styling:
Joshua Katcher, Jess Evelyn Leroy Featured Art:
Rob Bigwood, Alyssa Diaz, Jordan Elise, Christopher K. Lees, Tara Jacoby, Jess Evelyn Leroy, Kyle Opheim, SIT Special Thanks:
ON THE COVER: Photographer: Walter Sassard Model: Emily Wilson Makup: Bp Carmouché Hair: Bettina May Styling: Joshua Katcher Recycled PET-Felt Stole: Jordan Elise Earrings: Dirty Librarian Chains THIS PAGE: Photographer: Walter Sassard Model: Emily Wilson Makup: Bp Carmouché Hair: Bettina May Styling: Joshua Katcher Recycled Fabric Coat: Marlena Pavich Earrings, Bracelet & Ring: Dirty Librarian Chains
Animal Guardians, Jill Robinson and Animals Asia Foundation, Matt Rossell and Animal Defenders International, Oikeutta Eläimille (“Justice for Animals”), The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA/ Respect for Animals, Rob Philips, Nettverk for dyrs frihet (Network for Animal Freedom), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Choices for Tomorrow and Kozue Watanabe, Kjell Nordström and Mote mot Pels, International Anti-Fur Coalition, Anti-Fur Society, John Bartlett, Todd Oldham, Marc Bouwer, Stella McCartney, Julie Gueraseva, James Carson, Leanne Mai-ly Hilgart, Valerie Oula, James Koroni, Maya Gottfried, Oscar Figueroa, Parsons, LIM College, Fashion Instiute of Technology, Busy Beaver Button Co., Brooklyn Magazine, Tim Groen, Jojanneke van der Veer aka DJ Wannabeastar, Femke Dekker, Javier Barcala, The Believers, La Fortuna Studio, Tine Isachsen, Sara Tandero, Tara St. James & Bahar Shahpar of Guilded, Oslo Fashion Week, Michael Zhao, Andy Stepanian & Sparrow Media, Melissa Fornabaio, Briana Laemel