Gucci Announces It's Going Fur-Free - Page 2 - the Fashion Spot
 
How to Join
the Fashion Spot / the Sidewalk Café / Rumor has it...
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
15-10-2017
  16
backstage pass
 
YohjiAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Mexico City
Gender: homme
Posts: 571
The luxurious feel that Gucci had was the only thing I appreciated from them, now it's gonna be tacky clothes in tackier fabrics. Might as well just ditch fur altoghether since fake fur is just no good.

  Reply With Quote
15-10-2017
  17
fashion insider
 
Phuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,342
^^^ Nowadays, kidz associate logos and monograms with luxury… so as long as a Gucci basic sweatshirt or tee comes with 200 logos and is covered in monograms, that apparently means “luxury”.

What are the chances that once Alessandro falls out of flavor for with his thriftstore gimmick— and he inevitably will since kidz move on faster to new labels that 65yo billionaires move on from hitting on 21yo models, Kering will just follow whatever flavor-of-the-moment is, even that if may be a swing back to the ol’ luxurious real fur…???

I’m not a carnivore so no red meat nor poultry, but I do wear leather so I’m in no position to feel sanctimonious to those that gulp down meat like it’s air. But the slaughter industry does way more harm to the environment than the fur industry ever could: Everyone that’s so opposed to the fur industry for the supposed environmental harm really should also stop consuming/ supporting the slaughter industry for that same principle.

And a warm-blooded living being is a living being, and skin is skin. Why is it alright to wear Gucci calfskin leather loafers-- but if it's lined in fur, it all of a sudden is barbaric...???

  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  18
V.I.P.
 
rubydon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: city of angels
Gender: homme
Posts: 16,141
I'm vegan and choose not to wear leather. But I understand that right now, those choices wouldn't be acceptable for most people on the planet, and I respect everyone's right to make their own decisions as to what they eat or wear.

You're right about fur being not much different from leather. However, I think the value of a decision like this is symbolic. Slowly but surely we're moving away from a paradigm that equates animal suffering with luxury. The rejection of fur is just the first step, and I think that in 20 or 50 or 70 years, the changes made in our relationship with animals will be a lot more sweeping.

__________________
"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Status: Online
 
Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  19
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,813
As someone who eats meat and wears leather, the difference for me with fur is that, for the vast majority of us, it's just not necessary. Where I live, it's a status symbol pure and simple, there's nothing necessary about it. I also think the substitutes for fur (including cloth, polar fleece, etc.) are far better than the substitutes for leather. Pleather is pretty bad in my experience. Maybe we just haven't put enough energy into alternatives. When you think of a beautifully aged leather chair vs. cracked Naugahyde though, it's a little hard to imagine something manmade can match its quality and beauty.

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz
  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  20
fashion elite
 
Lola701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: france
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,891
They are going fur-free but they are still doing exotic leather pieces. If we want to go on the "fur is not necessary" thing, then alligator and python neither.

The fur business has really changed to be honest. There is still a demand for fur but all across the brands, i've seen that are selling more and more shearling, goat and lamb fur compared to fox , chinchilla and everything.

  Reply With Quote
 
16-10-2017
  21
fashion insider
 
Phuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,342
^^^ We've had this discussion before Lola. Those snakes and lizards just don't have the looks for people to sympathize with, I guess....

Oh come now, fashionista— eating red meat and wearing leather is “unnecessary” as well.

There are so many protein alternatives to red meat if its a dietary concern: But you enjoy the taste of red meat, just like you prefer the look and feel of real leather to fake. It’s no different than some that prefer the look and feel of real fur. It’s a matter of personal preference, not ethics.

You know, I had a friend who’s from one of the Maritime provinces. He came from a small town and most of its inhabitants, mostly Natives, have depended on the seal-fur trade for their livelihood for generations. Some time ago, their livelihood was disrupted by activists who demanded their trade be shut down, and one of the high profile activist there was Stella McCartney. This trade— as barbaric as some may think it to be, is a community’s livelihood for generations. They don’t have any other alternatives to make a living, and even if they were to move their families to a bigger community/city to find work, it’s not a easy process for them to simply uproot and assimilate. Will Stella be aiding them in any way to relocate, and educate them to find work?????

Activists like Stella may not need to worry about where her next meal may be coming from, so it’s a tad easier to play the holier-than-thou designer and cool activist.

I’ve always believed in careful reform of how we project a trade— any trade for that matter, that may be deemed inhumane. I’d rather see an investment in educating the fur-trade to treat their resources in the most humane manner possible. Fur is an ultimate luxury and no one “needs’ it— so hike up its price point even more, with the understanding that the resources are farmed and harvested in the most humane manner possible. I’m sure the typical Fendi clientele is not going to mind paying an extra thousand, or five for the seasons’ latest design...

  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  22
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,813
^ It's true that one can survive without either meat or leather ... but leather is considerably more functional than fur. I'm not going to say that no one needs fur to survive, but it's relatively few who do. Our species has been wearing leather shoes for millennia now, because they work. (Unsustainable) plastic isn't a fully-functional substitute for leather. It's not as durable, it doesn't breathe, it doesn't stretch, it doesn't wear well, it simply does not function as leather does.

I think that where native people are hunting/fishing sustainably as they have for millennia, that shouldn't be disturbed. It's primarily our own culture that is so rapacious that we can't live in harmony with nature and other animals. The last thing we should be doing is preaching to people who know what they're doing far better than we do. But I don't believe most fur is being sustainably hunted by native peoples.

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz
  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  23
fashion insider
 
Phuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,342
^^^ Unfortunately, the ideal of self-sustaining Native communities living in harmony with nature is more of a tourist illusion than it is a reality. Natives take work in local commercial furriers alongside other residents of the small towns to make a living nowadays. This is what I mean by generations working in the fur-trade.

It’s so easier for us, living in fashionable addresses, to reject furs as barbaric than it is for small communities that have relied on the trade for as far back as they can remember.

  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  24
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 25,880
I think the expectation of perfect synchrony of morals where upon a personal decision, a whole array of "conscientious" material options should unfold before our eyes, is, besides the broken promise a fallacy never fails to deliver, unrealistic and even socially evasive. That's not where society is yet and it usually backfires when trying to force it... e.g. dogmatic "environmentally responsible" lifestyles where everything should align regardless of the cost of the resources to achieve that. The result ends up contributing to the strangling of more vulnerable groups; the opposite result of letting alternatives settle in as part of their natural course (and this usually also starts from the top of the pyramid, where resources and education facilitate it) and assimilating them through a gradual process, which is how habits grow and disappear and it's more sensible in economic systems that cannot really handle full overturns.

Humans can train their minds, educate them over and over during their lifetime, revisit elements that are considered part of our DNA but that are vague and mostly social conditioning and what we have learned to value and aspire to, not unlike traditions. The visual aspect of these engrained notions of status are the easiest to modify and reinterpret: "glamour" "wealth" "opulence" "success" "luxury"... although harder than those we do not want to relate to and are easier to prove: "poor" "dirty" "slums" "trashy". Changing that takes what people forget to constantly exercise or never learned in the first place: self-criticism/self-questioning. Without it, you can turn 85 on our 22nd birthday.

The role of real fur in fashion (fashion as we know it, the industry most people in "rich" countries cannot even afford- not people in a Canadian igloo living off fish, or eastern Siberia closer to an animal than a heattech jacket, or Peruvian mountains) is about spectacle. It rarely has anything to do with harsh living conditions or weather. It talks about class, about unapologetic extravagance, opulence, it's an ode to rarity, "old money", decadence and its obligatory barbarity that the person wearing it considers himself worth of. There are so many unexplored options to cover our [very fragile/easily too cold/easily too hot/easily killed] bodies. We've made major progress in the past 50 years to face cold temperatures (can't say the same for hot temperatures), fake fur being one of them, we have invested billions training and investing in science projects. Is it too "naggy" to let go of one old habit our needs have graduated from (just like walking around searching for food with a sharp stone on hand got old for most people) and that is now mostly a relic of what we consider "wealth" and power? why the attachment towards a symbol of something that in its very essence, fluctuates? are we so easily impressed by it and sold on its alleged value? if we are impressed and sold on its value, isn't that admitting then to a deprived past and limited education... the opposite achievement of the act of wearing fur itself?

In short, I think that if it's proved possible to let go of something but you can't, maybe figure out why not, and question yourself?. And yes, I hate it when "personal experience" makes an appearance to validate a point, but I've been in places where vegan tourists go in and lecture locals. I recently came back from a place where all you wear at this time of the year is fur and all you eat is horse meat. To lecture, let alone judge, is out of place. Part of caring is knowing development of life on earth is uneven. There are still islands where male children have to masturbate the oldest men in the group as part of their upbringing as leaders. Death penalty is still practise in some countries. We are still scratching our heads about how to proceed when humans look physically different. So no, I don't think we can subject all groups with the same parameter, but given the option of choosing something that promotes a new way of visualizing attire and how we dress when we want respect/admiration in our own habitat, why not?.

Gucci probably figured out the answer though, you don't sit around waiting for humans to give up their s*it, you take out the guns, the fur, the soda.. and hopefully fund a scholarship.

Anyway... in my eternal "career" in tFS , I've learned there are two topics that bring out either the worst in people, or their absolute creepiest and that without failure, consistently lead nowhere: Grace Kelly discussions (you heard it right..), and fur.

  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  25
#Resist
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 15,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phuel View Post
^^^ Unfortunately, the ideal of self-sustaining Native communities living in harmony with nature is more of a tourist illusion than it is a reality. Natives take work in local commercial furriers alongside other residents of the small towns to make a living nowadays. This is what I mean by generations working in the fur-trade.

It’s so easier for us, living in fashionable addresses, to reject furs as barbaric than it is for small communities that have relied on the trade for as far back as they can remember.
If the sustainability of native lifestyles were an illusion, we would never have made it to the point where our own culture could bring the species to the brink of disaster in little more than 100 years (since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution).

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz
  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  26
V.I.P.
 
Benn98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bbbrrruummiiee
Gender: homme
Posts: 12,387
Gucci cares! Good on them. The fur trade is quite frankly outdated, barbaric, and should have been banished across the board years ago. Hopefully all Gucci's copycats will follow suit now.

Also, Phuel, I think you'll find your idea has been used by some greedy suit and that's the reason why fur sales seem to be soaring year after year. Hiking up prices will not put people off it, indeed, it will only result in the rise and introduction of 'economical' or obscure fur, which means more animals will be in peril. So you know years back rabbits were mainly reared for meat, with it's fur used as a byproduct. Then the meat faded out of the cuisine scene, and because the price point of luxury fur ended up unattainable, developing countries chanced on the idea of mass producing rabbit fur for commercial use. It eventually became so oversaturated in the fashion market that rabbit were being passed off as faux fur. What you must understand is that is fur is neither a neccesity nor is it ingrained in our cultural dna like meat. We've evolved and in the process fur became less of a necessity, same could happen with meat too in the next set of years. Especially with the rise of plant-based diets and the push for ethically sourced meat.

Edit: Just saw Mulletproof worded it better with her usual Dorothy Parker-style rant. Lol.

  Reply With Quote
16-10-2017
  27
fashion insider
 
Phuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,342
Gucci cares... That should be on a shirt. Or just that going fur-free isn’t going to hurt them the least financially. But it absolutely is gorgeous PR for their brand in these times when aligning with anti-fur will win favourable points with the fashionable and trendy.

Mullet, it’s not tradition that’s being stubbornly resistant to progress with these small Maritime communities. It’s simply about a livelihood. (You know, sometimes I dream of moving to the mountains of British Columbia, living a simple life— far far away from this increasingly insufferable fashion industry… But what would I do for work to pay for that life???? Nothing is free. Just like I’m at a lost when it comes to labour, these small coastal communities would be at a lost if they had to give up the fur-trade.)

These communities would be more than open to leave trapping/ fur trade behind if they could support their families by other means, but the opportunities just are not available to them. Sucks to be them, I guess? And let’s keep in mind, the fur trade isn’t just about supplying to the highest of high end designer labels. There are many more consumer-end furriers than there are high fashion designer ones.

Sometimes one's “needs” get mixed up with one's “wants”. And what’s needed as opposed to what’s wanted gets even more blurred when we’re dealing with the rarified, privileged experience of the fashion world and its lifestyle. There seems to be a disconnect when I read people applauding some luxury empire for taking a supposedly ethical stand for one brand of skin but continue to use other skins: Like, somehow… Gucci is morally-superior to a label like Fendi because they’re rejecting real fur— but not exotic reptiles??? LOL If it’s an environmental concern with some, then shut down slaughter houses and stop driving while we’re at it. And I may not agree with Stella for her activism that could have potentially caused financial ruin to hundreds of families because she feels morally-superior to their trade— unless, you know, she can actively contribute to their job relocation/ placement. There will always be a disconnect with someone like her to the commoners that are simply trying their best to get by (they can find other work to support their family...). But I do at least respect her for her commitment to rejecting all skins (and all meat?).

  Reply With Quote
17-10-2017
  28
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 25,880
^ bb the Maritime communities are the least of my concerns lol (sorry to put it bluntly- they’re in my thoughts though.. now). I was talking about people like you or me.. but did mention that I respect and 100% think people should back off from regions or communities that for starters, are NOT fashion consumers or even enthusiasts or as stuck in capitalist mud like the rest of us.

I think it’s a bit defensive to interpret a decision to give up one old practise (of the many they will always carry, beginning and ending with the fact that it’s a luxury goods company, think of what that means in developed countries where so many people are digging through the trash to find food..) as a high horse of ethics. Why can’t it just be a step forward from their humble positioning as a fashion brand that brings (much like fashion in general) nothing relevant other than ideas on how not to be naked. It shouldn’t be necessarily applauded at this point when it’s kind of overdue, and it shouldn’t either be interpreted as ‘how dare you lecture and judge me for my choices, Gucci!’. If by all means, dressing like that is a right that should never be taken away, good news is there will always be someone doing that, and when the rest of fashion stops, it will be sold directly from African hunters so no one’s going to be deprived from the ‘furry’ fix they’re entitled to.

  Reply With Quote
17-10-2017
  29
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 25,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phuel View Post
But what would I do for work to pay for that life????.
Forgot to answer this. I dream or dreamed of the same so I tried it for 5 seconds, and it’s not that romantic, it’s a lot of hard work : mix cement to finish building your own toilet seat, walk 5 kms carrying buckets, count if you still have 44 cows, go out riding for 4 hours trying to find the missing one, kill a horse just in time for dinner, find wood in order to make soup, see if the nearby village finally got a veggies shipment. There’s so much to do just to put food in your mouth and have a roof that you age so fast, certainly everyday is a bad skin day, and this is what I’m talking about, if our difficult part of the day comes down to choosing between pork sausage and tofurkey sausage, smooth or furry texture on a new coat, I mean.. be more grateful for these privileges that were certainly not handed over by the grace of god but by bombing, invading, coercing, stealing oil.. if our only role or form of apology is to do something not necessarily consistent with the rest of our lifestyle but just one thing that is not offensive, yes maybe?.


Last edited by MulletProof; 17-10-2017 at 12:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
announces, furfree, gucci
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2017 All rights reserved.