Joshua Katcher,
VeganPublishers.com
February 2018
Excerpt from Fashion Animals by Joshua Katcher which you can preorder via Indiegogo.
My intention is to construct a bridge (or a runway) between the images, representations and popular mythology of animals in fashion with the elusive and heavily guarded island of truth. It is only from this bridge that we can see the great abyss that separates fashion fantasy from the reality of fashion production.
Ultimately, I dare to say that it is never a matter of how animals are used in fashion, it is a matter that they are used at all.
Fashion Animals by Joshua Katcher
It all started with an image of a woman surrounded by kittens. Constance Jablonski is on the floor in metallic leggings and chrome, tassel-loafer heels. The image is black and white. She rests her forehead on her left hand, the arm propped up on her knee. She looks down, revealing feline eye-makeup, her relaxed face is framed by big loose curls that spill onto her breasts that are covered just barely enough by a fur coat that hangs off her right shoulder. Crawling on and between her legs is a litter of five white kittens. The editorial, shot for Vogue Italia’s November 2011 issue, includes several similar images, and is supplemented by a video where Jablonski, diamonds, roses, kittens and furs mingle against an operatic soundscape[1]. I was almost entirely entranced by this extreme feminine distillate that balanced softness, sex, innocence, agelessness, beauty and pastel light. But something seemed off and I couldn’t quite pinpoint it at first.
Was Jablonski playing mother to these kittens in her fur? Did the
stylist, photographer and crew cast her as the fierce lioness? A disconnect
suddenly became glaring. And then, like a domino effect, I realized that
this was something that I had seen frequently in fashion magazines. So many
images, whether editorials or advertisements, featured models posing with
living animals while also wearing clothing or accessories made from the body
parts of other animals. The only reason I hadn’t noticed it before was
because these, and all fashion images, are dressed up in ideological
camouflage.
The living animals who appear in these types of ads, editorials and
campaigns are usually a spectacle, an object of fascination or an object of
affection. And from what I knew at the time, the way in which the animals
being worn were turned into fashion objects stood in direct opposition to
the validation afforded to the still-living animals, and furthermore, the
empowerment and “goodness” granted to the model who had annexed these
animals’ aesthetics. The fashion industry is already riddled with
contradictions and ethical pitfalls, and I suspected that this was an
integral piece to a larger puzzle. I began searching for more of these
images and compiling them. Soon I couldn’t keep up with the volume of visual
fashion content that included live animals uncomfortably close to the
remains of others.
From the stockpile of images, tropes began to emerge: women cradling lambs while wearing wool, women in fur walking dogs, images of rabbits or baby wildcats being cuddled while the models wore fur, male models with alligators, sheep, or any creature slung across their shoulders, and models with birds perched on their arms while wearing feathers. The question for me was not why are there so many animals being used in these images selling fashion, because the answer seemed obvious; humans are simply fascinated by animals. Instead, the question became what does the presence of animals in fashion unveil? In other words, what does this manifestation of cognitive dissonance in the fashion-industrial-media-complex reveal about our relationship to nature and animals? What does it mean to adore one animal and wear another, especially when they are similar, if not the same? How are animals’ perspectives and physical bodies represented, appropriated, confined, processed, and invalidated in the fashion context? What does it reveal about how we aspire to be seen? And what does it fail to reveal, or even intentionally hide? Another question that seemed obvious as more and more animals appear in ads and editorials: where do these live animals come from, and what happens when they’re done being photographed?
Lanvin’s Winter 2013 ad campaign by Steven Miesel, a photographer who
consistently includes animals in his images, featured a model in fur posing
with a live goose and a necklace that says “love.” Ironically, in the
related campaign video a model can be heard saying, “…misdirected love, ugh,
that’s a killer.”[2] Beyond the blatant contradictions that first caught my
eye, there is a largely unexplored, intersectional history of animals used
in every aspect of the fashion industrial complex, as well as pressing,
contemporary ethical and ecological concerns that demand this topic be
examined seriously. Andrew Bolton, who curated the Metropolitan Museum of
Art’s exhibit WILD: Fashion Untamed explains:
The history of fashion’s appropriation of animal skins, prints, and
symbolism is also a history of society’s changing attitudes and ambivalences
toward human-animal relations. Like fashion, which often serves as a
cultural barometer, society oscillates between accepting and rejecting the
dominant anthropocentric assumptions that have come to shape a hierarchical
relation between humans and animals.[3]
It turned out that this was nothing new, and I quickly found out that
this visual juxtaposition had a long history. As I went further and further
back into archives, it seemed that this sort of image had been a part of the
fashion industry since its creation. It became clear that this phenomenon
was not just a few images that fascinated and troubled me. This was
something much bigger and much deeper. It was something that pointed to our
civilization’s most deep-seated beliefs regarding the non-human animals with
whom we share the planet, and I wanted to understand the hidden forces at
play. Fashion not only covers up our naked animal bodies, it also uncovers
social, cultural, and ideological systems at work. Simply asking how clothes
are made—by whom, of what or whom, in which way, where, and in what
context—can lay bare an elaborate atlas mapping the highest peaks of our
greatest aspirations for status and worth to the darkest abysses of our
fears, indifference, and ignorance.
My intention is to construct a bridge (or a runway) between the images,
representations and popular mythology of animals in fashion with the elusive
and heavily guarded island of truth. It is only from this bridge that we can
see the great abyss that separates fashion fantasy from the reality of
fashion production.
My hope is that this book shines a critical spotlight on a longstanding,
mainstream carnist ideology with contradictions that manifest quite
glaringly in fashion, yet have gone almost unnoticed due to the twin popular
beliefs that fashion is superficial and that animals are objects. I hope to
also connect two seemingly opposing and mutually misunderstood areas: animal
liberation and fashion studies. I hope to validate non-human animals as
beings worthy of inclusion in critical analyses of fashion—an area of
inquiry that has overwhelmingly ignored animal issues or at best, treated
the compartmentalization, conditions and circumstances surrounding fashion’s
exploitation of animals as trivial.
Ultimately, I dare to say that it is never a matter of how animals are used
in fashion, it is a matter that they are used at all.
NOTES
[1] Kadel, G. (2011, November). Vogue Beauty Story. (F. Sozzani, Ed.)
Vogue Italia (735).
[2] LANVIN. (2013). LANVIN Winter 2013. (S. Miesel, Producer) From
YouTube: http://youtu.be/aWTiwybo92I
[3] Bolton, A. (2004). WILD: Fashion Untamed (Metropolitan Museum of Art
Series). Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Return to Animal Rights Articles