With his Schiaparelli spring 2023 couture collection, Daniel Roseberry opened the gates of hell in numerous ways. The collection, which was partly inspired by Dante Alighieri's "Inferno," stoked the fires of online discourse. Alighieri would have certainly condemned some of his subjects to hell if he had known how the internet would be in 2023.
They charged down the runway. Shalom Harlow was wearing a cocktail dress that was completely covered in a replica of the snowy fur of a leopard, complete with a head that snarled at the bust; Irina Shayk was seated in a column of black velvet with a lion on top, its proud tongue clearly raised as it hunted for its next meal; a wolf's snout protrudes from Naomi Campbell's left shoulder in a shaggy fur coat, resembling a deleted scene from the 2018 film Annihilation
They are crafted by hand from foam, resin, wool, and hand-painted silk faux fur and are a calculated conversation starter in a time when people debate whether wealth should roar or whisper. To cynics, they are just a gimmick. Roseberry has unmistakably taken a stand. Even though they were made by people, Schiaparelli's creations were alarming in their bravado, especially to the tens of thousands of vocal Instagram commenters for the brand. With ferocious rage, words like "disturbing," "disgusting," and "shameful" emerged. One user simply put their feelings into words: "Poor taste!"
However, one nuance was lost in the commotion as supermodels sauntered in recreations of exotic skins, causing a storm of outrage. Inadvertently, Roseberry's decision to display an overly literal interpretation of iconic source material made every other brand's faux fur made from petroleum appear tame in comparison. How simple it is for a company to post a snide caption about its upcoming collection of faux-fur coats: "Hey, at least you won't have to feel bad for our faces."
Hot-take advocates fail to take into account the real environmental and ethical harm that is at the heart of the production of faux fur because they are so quick to voice their concerns about how these items may represent or glorify game hunting.
By 2032, polyester, a nonbiodegradable fiber, is expected to account for $174.7 billion in sales of plastic fur alternatives. Now is the time to rethink how they market their products in order to win over the jaded crowd. Yet even within the false self, there is a trace of the true self. The hyperreality of aesthetic experiments like Schiaparelli's diverts our attention from the ways in which we consume other animal products in fashion, like cow leather, which directly conflict with food industry factory farming practices. Therefore, why be concerned about a lion head made of silk and wool when so much leather is wasted making endless quantities of shoddy, disposable goods? Instead of reflecting, snappy responses on social media focus solely on the most brutal image. One Instagram commenter said that a fake lion's head, which is just a hyperreal representation of a safari symbol, could directly "provoke dangerous behavior and glamorize both trophy hunting and animal violence."
The more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that telling ourselves that we could buy our way to sustainability was the true root of the problem. However, is there a way to ethically wear real or faux fur? It appears as though PETA has reversed its famous "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign with its praise of the collection, which it describes as "fabulously innovative." The animal-rights group wasted momentum during a rare moment of united disillusionment among vegans and omnivores alike in its zealous attempt to ride the PR coattails of front-row lion wearer Kylie Jenner. PETA could have urged people to buy used fur because it is better for the environment than using raw materials to make new textiles. In the United States alone, more than 11 billion tones of fur ended up in landfills in 2018.
The majority of fellow vintage dealers were similarly pragmatic when I inquired about their thoughts regarding genuine fur purchased secondhand, citing its lower impact on the environment and warmth as reasons to purchase it over anything new. "The energy has already been put into it and has so much more output," wrote one customer.
Another person went a step further because they felt obligated to "not let the animals die in vain." Thankfully, we can all benefit from the practical, thoughtful, and viable personal solution of truly valuing what is already in circulation, such as genuine vintage fur that will biodegrade.
It is essential to focus on the ever-increasing profits of fast-fashion brands that sell fake goods in large quantities while advertising them as vegan or cruelty-free. These brands won't face the same backlash as Schiaparelli did because the clothes from last season haven't been worn and, worst of all, have been dumped in landfills.
Schiaparelli said, in reference to the appearance, "It is a reminder that there is no such thing as heaven without hell; without sorrow, there is no joy; without the torture of doubt, creation cannot attain ecstasy."
The many responses to this show show that there is no such thing as good taste without bad taste, that there is no such thing as real without fake, and that there is no such thing as haute couture success without excessive fast fashion. We cannot allow these illusions to hijack our attention spans during moments designed for virality and earned media value. Contrary to the horrifyingly enticing visions of couture, the market forces that should be fought against are far less glamorous and far more powerful.
0 Comments