Fabulista Rejects: Gucci and Pigs

I have mentioned in an earlier post about how I dislike Gucci’s designs. They have gone the easy way out by emblazoning their logos, ostentatiously and unabashedly everywhere on their products. Perhaps they should take a leaf or two from out the design philosophy of their subsidiary Bottega. Products should be as works of art and design. The logo and/or brand is only a final touch - like an artist signing off one's work tastefully in a discreet corner.

Or perhaps they are just appealing to a certain demographics?

In addition, EVERYBODY knows that Gucci uses pigskin extensively in their leather products. Pigskin is easily recognisable with its signature triangular pore-pattern arrangement (see photo below). As read on MensFolio:

“Pigskin's status got elevated ever since Gucci used it extensively on its leather goods. Of course, when Gucci does it, they make sure it looks good. Afterall every Gucci sells for a few hundred bucks. The pores actually become like a pattern of the leather. And it's very scratch resistant.”

But,

“Pigskin has always been regarded as the cheap alternative to cowhide and is commonly used to make bags, wallets and shoes. Because of its low price, pigskin is also used as the inner linings for bags and shoes.”

There are certain strata in my society and indeed the world, where handling of anything porcine is religiously forbidden. Thus, I always find strange, bizarre even, to see them carrying Gucci. It’s surreal to see them all wrapped up, covering their faces and necks and then around their arms and sometimes cradled in their bosoms – a pigskin product with the double-G emblazoned on them... or does that mean that they are carrying fakes...?

Eeew... scary thought!