Editorial: "Reality Show" by Mario Testino (Vogue Paris, August 2008)

Picture source



None of us approves of animals being hurt or killed but let`s face it, fur is a big part of fashion. Just think of Chanel`s last collection, that was almost fur only and consider fashion`s biggest "opinion-maker", Vogue, approving of real fur. Fur is there and it`s not going anywhere since it is still one of the "biggest luxury statements", since it`s the most expensive material. Fur IS a status symbol (that we see on celebrities f.e.), that`s why ALL the big fashion houses have new fur-coats & accessories every winter. Sure, there are designers like Stella McCartney that demonstrate that you can be fashionable without animal-materials but let`s be honest ladies, who`s items do we fancy more - Stella McCartney`s or Chanel`s?



What is your view on fur? Luxury fashion item or moralic no-go?



An interesting aspect of Testino`s editorial is, that he pictures fur as part of model`s work in the black and white shots. Indeed, presenting fur (or "blood-diamonds"...) can be part of a model`s work but what about their personal conscience or even their "moral obligation" (as "celebrities" or at least public figures)?



Do you think models should refuse to wear fur (if they personally disaprove of it) and "possibly endanger their career" for their moral principles? Is "moral a luxury you must be able to afford" or is everybody bound to it, disregarding of the consequences?