I am aware that there are many pressing problems facing humanity right now. However, I feel like someone should still ask the question, why are shoes so bad these days?
Do not misunderstand me. I love a bold shoe as much as the next woman. But there’s a difference between a thick sole and a pair of round Pirellis that stick to your feet.
It’s like the difference between a shoe that’s a little sharp and one that feels like you’re saying goodbye to your senses.
And as for materials, I know we’re all supposed to be vegans today, but you can’t ask for a thousand for recycled plastic and canvas.
If I didn’t know any better, I would say like the designers were laughing at us. Emperor’s new shoes, anyone?
Check out – and try not to laugh – at the so-called styles we can expect this spring.
Balenciaga has the absolutely repulsive Crocs Madame rubber open-toed heels for £450 each and Marni’s Liquorice Allsort platform sandals for £650;
Balenciaga has the absolutely repulsive Crocs Madame rubber slingbacks for £450 each; Marni’s Licorice Allsort platform sandals for £650; Christian Louboutin’s grotesque – both in appearance and price – £1,095 metal ankle boot; and perfect for the perennial potter, pink rubber boots by Bottega Veneta, yours for £465.
As if fashion houses had some kind of collective stylectomy.
But in reality, it is the ugliness that stands out. My school shoes in the 1970s were more aesthetic. I’ve seen orthoses that are more attractive. What exactly is the inspiration here? Ramblers favorite, Mountain Warehouse? Has Someone Flyed Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? Frankly, there are men who wear more flamboyant socks and sandals at German beer festivals than this group.
Christian Louboutin’s grotesque – both in appearance and price – £1,095 metal ankle boot; and perfect for a perennial potter, Bottega Veneta’s pink boots are yours for £465
Of course, comfort is important, and I’m not saying we should all come across Manolo Blahnik mules. But nowadays, even when designers try on a sexy shoe, they come up with something that makes the wearer look like they’ve had a nasty yeast infection or something unpleasant.
Examples are Roberto Cavalli’s hideous green thigh-high boots worn by Lily James recently at a BAFTA party, or the black equivalent of Billie Piper’s tiger teeth.
No doubt Billie’s boots looked sturdy and handsome; but in case they look like they’re covered in toenails.
But what about Loewe’s eggshell heels worn by Normal People star Daisy Edgar-Jones? They were hailed as witty by the fashion press, let’s face it, it was just a joke – at the expense of the user.
Land of Shoes – AKA as someone who grew up in Italy I find this incredibly depressing. I’ve always been a magpie for a versatile heel, a true piece of craftsmanship.
I am not one to dream of spending more than £50 on a dress but would do anything for a timeless pair of Ferragamos.
But even that label seems to be infested with the nasty shoe bug, with its new collection priced at a ridiculous £750 with a distorted and completely useless heel shape and an even more rubbery eye-catcher like the Gincini sock sneakers.
With the new Ferragamo collection comes a distorted and completely unnecessary heel shape and Gancini sock sneakers (£750).
My revulsion for these styles comes, I think, from having to put up with so much ugliness about shoes at a young age. Since I’m a size 8 (42) from my 17th foot, I’ve spent my whole life longing for styles that don’t fit me.
It’s not that bad these days – most brands go up to 42 years old. But when I was younger, it was often a choice between wearing a men’s shoe (thank goodness, loafers and Doc Martens were in vogue in the 1980s) or visiting. Shops specializing in shoes for the most masculine woman, like Crispins in London’s Chiltern Street.
Ah, how I wish I could wear a pair of Jimmy Choos and not feel my feet cramped. If you can’t have something, you tend to love it more.
So it’s inconceivable that someone would want to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds for something that looks like something you can find at Millets. Still, I’m afraid that’s the only way to describe these styles.
The worst for me are Christian Louboutin Velcrissimo sandals – yours is just £575.
Jil Sander Quilted Leather Slippers (£540) and JW Anderson Chain Slides (360)
The worst for me are Christian Louboutin Velcrissimo sandals – yours is just £575.
Louboutin we are talking about here: the undisputed master of elegant shoes; creator of the iconic red sole that still represents the pinnacle of luxury. How a designer in his own right could name such a monster himself, I just don’t understand. I’m assuming an expression is Covid. I mean, we were all used to more practical shoes when life was more about endless walks in the park than partying.
And we all know that one of the side effects of the terrible virus is the loss of taste, which is abundant here. I just hope it doesn’t last
Prozena Scholer Open Back (£595) and Stella McCartney Skyla Booties (£625)
Alaia Laser Cut Sandals (£1,580) and Emilie Veggie Leather Sandals by Stella McCartney (£585)
Loewe glitter platform sandals (£725) and Bimba Y Lola leather sandals (£170)
Chloe’s Lilli recycled neoprene sandals with grosgrain edging (£595) and Bottega Veneta stretch shoes (£1,045)
Stella McCartney faux-lined Emilie boots (£595) and Bottega Veneta platform Chelsea boots (£940)
Devon Satin Mule by Attico (£525)
But the truth is laziness, greed and lack of imagination. Such styles are inexpensive and easy to mass produce.
They do not require skill or ingenuity.
And they appeal to the only people who seem important to designers these days – celebrities, influencers and pop stars who don’t care what they wear as long as they get noticed.
What real women want are shoes that fit well, fit you well and are affordable. Keep dreaming.
Source: Daily Mail
