"The stylist ate my ethical homework."
That's my excuse for my recent lack of blogs, based on a defence recently employed by Gwyneth Paltrow and as reported on ecorazzi.com (the version of OK without Kerry Katona that's also green).
Gwyneth - clearly seen wearing a fur stole as part of her advertising contract with Tod's - apologised to Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ) and presumably its millions of members who previously bought into her macrobiotic-yoga stuff with the quick thinking sidestep:
"During one set-up, a stylist came up from behind and draped a stole around my shoulders. I didn't pay much attention to it, and when I noticed it was fur I assumed it was fake fur but did not ask, so it's my fault.
"I was very surprised when they ended up using that one shot out of hundreds for the centrepiece of the Tod's ads. I know it's not a great excuse, but I hope you and your members understand."
No Gwyneth, it's not a great excuse (nor does it explain the python shoes), and it is breathtakingly unchivalrous to blame a stylist, but then we should all be grateful that an A-lister bothers to excuse herself from fur wearing at all these days. I've lost count of the supermodels who featured in the iconic I'd rather go naked than wear fur campaign that have since trotted out in the near-fresh pelt of a dead creature courtesy of Blackglama or some other big-name fur producer. Sponsoring fashion colleges, young designers and catwalks, the fur industry has staged the biggest comeback since Lazarus.
Nigella Lawson's famously carnivorous appetite went into overdrive last week when she claimed on TV that she felt: "… going into a shop and buying a fur coat would be an act of weakness but if I could go out into the woods and kill a bear myself, I would then wear it proudly as a trophy."
Actually she was on the One Show, the teatime show that I contribute to. The audience went nuts on the show's blog and then so did the newspapers the following day. But are we really that outraged? Fur and other non mainstream animal products (by mainstream I mean leather) including python and snakeskin are not really taboos any more in the garment and shoe industry.
Once upon a time in Brighton you would have been alerted to the presence of fur in a shop by all the paint on the window and the protestors chained to the railings. Not any more. I went into a boutique there the other day and there were three fur stoles for sale, one near the window, although admittedly not in it. When I inquired about their provenance I was told they were "sustainable because the fur's a by-product". There was nothing to certify this was the case.
The Danish ethical label, Noir, unrepentantly uses fur in its mainline collection on the grounds that it's a sustainable fibre. Is it slowly being accepted? Does it make a difference, in ethical terms, if it's old fur or the fur of a creature that's culled like a possum?
There's an element of self interest creeping in here - I found some vintage shoes at a clothes swap; dark green, with a heel in racing green and a black net rosette, except there's actually a globule of rabbit fur (perhaps a testical?) on each one. I know they sound disgusting but they're actually charming and lovely. I think they're 60s. Should I bin them or wear them with impunity or should they go to landfill?
