I used to covet a Kolinsky Sable brush. Not just a little one - a big, fat lovely one to do huge washes with. But I've realized that using fur is neither compassionate nor ethical. Facing up to the reality of fur means that a Kolinsky sable brush will never find a place in my studio. Fortunately, synthetic alternatives are excellent - my preferred brushes are Taklon, and especially the Robert Wade white Taklon brushes available here in Australia. Comparable brushes in the USA would be Robert Simmons 'White Sable'. I find that the Taklon brush holds its point well, and holds enough water to wash well without flooding. And there's no animal cruelty involved.
The 'best' Kolinsky Sable is made from winter coat of the Siberian Weasel, though fur from its cousins, the Himalayan or Yellow weasels or Martens, is also used. Farming methods are not humane, and the animals are protected in some areas so there's a thriving trade in illegal pelts.
More on Fur:
The Cruelty of Fur Farms
Peta Exposes Cruelty (caution, distressing video)
Fur Isn't Green (discussion in comments)
Image: Part of a haul of 85 wild weasel skins confiscated by Beijing forest police. (© Getty Images) Top: a Siberian Weasel in Dresden Zoo (Wikimedia).
Comments
Thanks for mentioning this. Sometimes I take for granted the steps involved in the manufacturing of art supplies, including those made without ethical considerations. A much-needed wake-up call.
Thanks, Dawn. I should add, that if you already possess brushes with Sable or other animal-sourced fibers, the best thing you can do is keep them, care for them and use them well. Getting rid of them or feeling guilty about it isn’t going to be useful!
The British chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, has an excellent philosophy of using the whole animal – if you’re going to kill an animal for food, you treat it with respect, cook an excellent meal and use every last part that you can.
Hmmmmmmmmm Ethics?
I am a huge believer in not mowing down the remaining wild populations of anything, for $$$$$$$.
But does anything from spores to herbivores to carnivores ever go, “Hey would you like a general anasthetic and some whack job christian counseling from a preacher – before I kill / assimilate / digest / eat you?”
From the yeasts and moulds on our skin and in out body, to the mites, worms, and all the bacteria etc., that is constantly feeding on us and from us, well we are just food to everything else on the planet as much as everything else on the planet is food to us.
The big picture comes with the issue of sustainability – which in the simplified version, no matter what we destroy, life will go on.
The question arises, “Will it go on with us, or will it go on without us?”
Very interesting thoughts, Jahm!
For my part, caring for the planet is very much self interest! It’s our home, the only one we’ve got. People often make the mistake of thinking that ‘greenies’ care more about trees than people. But for me at least, it’s a case of caring for our life-support system. If we all are wiped out, most of life on earth destroyed, something will arise in its place, the planet will go on until the dying sun eventually engulfs it.
The ethical consideration about fur is the pain we inflict upon these intelligent creatures. Being part of the food chain, some degree of cruelty is unavoidable. But why cause suffering if it can be easily avoided?
That’s a very good philosophy that chef has. Just like the Indians did, he wastes nothing.
Satanic Rule Of The Earth number 10:
“Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.”
Killing a farmed animal for nutrition is one thing (I am an omnivore); killing for something for which there is a suitable substitute (like a paint brush or warm coat) is unforgivable. And when you kill, use the entire animal. When a 500 pound cow is slaughtered for food, none of it is wasted.
As for loving trees, they clean the very air we breath, keep our soil from eroding out from under us and give us shelter from heavy rain and hot sun.
I don’t understand the controversy about global warming. I don’t want air that looks like smut or water that smells like rot or the chemicals used to kill the rot. The steps required to clean the air and water are the same required to fight global warming, so is the arguing not moot? We shoot ourselves in the foot if we don’t start taking better care of the natural gifts given us.
Don’t forget, even with all the synthetic brushes in your roll, your watercolors are still suspended in ox gall, which is sourced in cattle.
Jahm makes a valid philosophical argument about eating animals for food but like Karalee said, there is a suitable substitute for paint brushes. Now, as a former vegetarian I’d argue that there is also a plethora of suitable food substitutes but in this case, dietary needs can be restrictive.
I too am an omnivore right now due to diet but if i can avoid using animals I will and I’d never buy fur as it’s one of the most cruel animal trades.
I also see it like Hugh FW. At least treat the animal well and make the most of it if you must eat it. I wish there was more transparency about where meat comes from but it seems to be only available with the really expensive options. Meat from the big supermarkets for example, I have to assume come from factory farms which usually have terrible conditions.
@Talia
Not all watercolors are made from ox gall. There are “vegan” watercolors made without using animal parts (search “vegan watercolor” for specific brands, there are several now.)
Also, even if an artist uses watercolor paints made from ox gall, that doesn’t take away the “good” from switching to fur-free brushes. Reducing cruelty in any way, shape, or form is a good thing.