This is an image of a famous model, Ashley James, holding a skinned animal out with one arm. The image was created by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is the largest animal rights organization in the world, boasting over 5 million members and followers. The ad is meant to bring to light how the company, Harvey Nichols, abandoned their decade-long fur-free policy, to increase their revenue and consumers. Harvey Nichols hides behind a marketing ploy called Origin Assured, in which animals are guaranteed humane treatment before they are killed. Countries such as Finland, Sweden, the US and the other known "Origin Assured" countries are being exposed by PETA to illuminate to people that they truly don’t follow the guidelines
…show more content…
The angle, at which she holds it, further away from her body, could indicate her displeasure and disgust with what is left of the animal after the fur is removed. She holds it far from her body as to show her disgust (think back to holding a bag of foul-smelling trash.) Her face is gazing directly at you, the viewer, as if to say, “Look at what you support. How could you?” An expression of displeasure lingers on her face, her mouth a little gaped open as if to say, “Are you kidding me?” She shares a similar expression a mother would give off to her young when disappointed. Even the placement of her right arm (in terms of her facing you) with her hand on her hip indicates anger. One way for a person to silently display displeasure or anger is to place their hand on their hip (think back to when you disappointed a female companion.) Her right hand is grasped tightly on her hip, while she holds the skinned mink (?) away her from, in a disgusted angered pose. Without even directly speaking, she is conveying the message, “This is what you do when you support fur trade and/or wear it…say no to fur trade and fur trim.” What is it exactly about actual fur that makes it so desirable, despite faux fur feeling and looking eerie similar to actual fur? Is it morally wrong to raise animals solely for their fur? Are most animals in the fur trade treated cruelly? Is the fur trade industry ethical in any way? Is the fur trade industry harmful to the
The angle, at which she holds it, further away from her body, could indicate her displeasure and disgust with what is left of the animal after the fur is removed. She holds it far from her body as to show her disgust (think back to holding a bag of foul-smelling trash.) Her face is gazing directly at you, the viewer, as if to say, “Look at what you support. How could you?” An expression of displeasure lingers on her face, her mouth a little gaped open as if to say, “Are you kidding me?” She shares a similar expression a mother would give off to her young when disappointed. Even the placement of her right arm (in terms of her facing you) with her hand on her hip indicates anger. One way for a person to silently display displeasure or anger is to place their hand on their hip (think back to when you disappointed a female companion.) Her right hand is grasped tightly on her hip, while she holds the skinned mink (?) away her from, in a disgusted angered pose. Without even directly speaking, she is conveying the message, “This is what you do when you support fur trade and/or wear it…say no to fur trade and fur trim.” What is it exactly about actual fur that makes it so desirable, despite faux fur feeling and looking eerie similar to actual fur? Is it morally wrong to raise animals solely for their fur? Are most animals in the fur trade treated cruelly? Is the fur trade industry ethical in any way? Is the fur trade industry harmful to the