Louboutin Fall 2014 calendar - Surrealism or just plain nasty?

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?