And yet, some people do not recognise the difference between plastic and leather

And yet, some people do not recognise the difference between plastic and leather

The difference between plastic and leather should be clear. The difference between synthetic and natural materials in terms of fashion and design should be clear. But it isn’t. There are those who continue to muddy the waters, raising a fuss (terminological and argumentative) to make fossil fuel derivatives appear not only preferable, but even better than leather. Even in Glasgow, where COP26 is underway, Stella McCartney has managed to make a fuss. That’s why the three points in the press review on material dualism are interesting. They are well worth reading.

Reading tips:

– Let’s start at the Museu de la Pell in Igualada (Barcelona). Where “Plàstic – Genial o pervers: tu com ho veus?” (Plastic – Great or bad: how do I look?) is on show until January 30. The exhibition is not so much about the dualism with leather, despite the institute hosting it, but about the ambivalence of synthetic materials: certainly very useful in many applications. But, since micro-plastics have also been found in human faeces, it is also something that causes deep concern;

– Speaking of the difference between plastic and leather, the media hype surrounding the Ocean Cleanup operation is reminiscent of one concerning the end of life cycle. But have you ever seen islands of leather floating in the Pacific?

– Then we come across some nice Freudian slips. Fashion United interviews an Italian producer of alternatives to fur. Let’s gloss over the use and abuse of expressions such as “eco-fur” and “synthetic fur”, banned by the so-called Leather Decree. A sudden admission makes us smile: “Synthetic fur has a thermal efficiency equal to 85% of natural fur, as natural fur has leather while synthetic fur has fabric”. Given that, natural materials do have some merit?

Read also:



Choose one of our subscription plans

Do you want to receive our newsletter?
Subscribe now