How to even begin this post? With my personal statement on this subject
or?
Lets start from the beginning. Yesterday Monsieur Louboutin`s calendar
for Fall 2014 look book came out. And everybody has an opinion on how gory or
brilliant this is.
I came across this subject via Style.com where they, as I understood it,
went on the pro side, mentioning their source of this hot potato theme - The
Telegraph. Ms Kate Finigan took the other side of the road labelling the
famous "shoe whisperer" and this look book revolting.
But I did loved the mention of French photographer Guy Bourdin.
When I first saw the photos, I didn`t get upset or revolted. Maybe I
should`ve?
To me these legs look more like they "came" from some mannequin
than that the photographer and the designer in question wanted to present
chopped off legs. Maybe I am wrong?
In all the media, first thing they mention (relating to this calendar)
is Louboutin`s statement from 2011 how his shoes are not meant to be
comfortable and how he hates comfort.. yadda yadda - we all know it. Well the
guy needs to sell his story and his shoes and whether it is true or just
good/quirky/revolting/smart/odd/surreal marketing trick - I don`t know.
I like this calendar. It is a bit quirky but it doesn’t make me sick.
Should it? Am I insensitive of some bigger/social issue? I do see how some
could bring this calendar into reference to amputation and disabled persons,
but I don`t see blood or any indication of mutilation. We all have those
finger-to-elbow-arm-shaped jewellery stands at home and nobody questioned manufacturers
for their not so appealing products. OK, I am lying. I don`t have that thingy
at home. I find it ugly and revolting, so there. Double standards.
From an aesthetic point of view, these legs are beautifully arranged in
luxurious sets. The whole set/angle of the photo compliments the shoes and
follows the whole story of high class merchandise.
Expensive. I wonder could I at least afford the boxes? or A box?
And in the end, I totally understand why he went this way. Maybe he did
want to appal, draw more attention or whatever, or maybe that didn`t even
crossed his mind; but I know this - seeing the product on "someone",
or at least to see how a shoe fits and goes with the leg (foot, calf) is
somewhat a defining and deciding moment for some buyers. Sometimes I see a shoe
and it looks so ugly, but then seeing it on mine or someone else’s leg - it can
be seen in a different light and look WAY better.
Then again, that can (and usually does) go the other way too.
What do you think?
Surrealism or gory and revolting?
