| |
|
Legba, what do you mean when you say 'the fur aesthetic'? Sorry to pick up on what was actually quite a small part of your post, but I find it interesting since my own image of what that aesthetic is, is quite different from any of the pictures you post or what you talk about.
But there are miles between a person hunting and stripping an animal of its skin... and the monied classes walking around in fur that they have bought
I was thinking about that with reference to this thread as well, and wondered if the status was actually now derived from the fact that fur is so far dissociated from its source -it is, as Nina says, quite clear that the wearer didn't actually kill, clean and treat the hides of several animals. So is the status now just from the fact that the wearer can pay for someone else to do all this, which I would imagine (correctly or otherwise) to be more difficult than, for example, making a tshirt? And is this the same kind of status as that derived from any other piece of expensive clothing, or is the fact that it was once alive important?
Too many parentheses in the above paragraph, apologies for that... |
|
|
