Weddingbee boards

I have to admit that I agree with some of the comments about Louboutins in this article.  They've actually become a bit too over the top. If I was going to spend big bucks on shoes, I'd go for the more classic and feminine Manolo Blahniks myself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/fashion/manolo-blahnik-shoes-regain-it-status-in-fashion-world.html

From the article:

It was Mr. Louboutin who most effectively hijacked Manolo Blahnik’s thunder and a chunk of his market, using an arsenal of gaud and ostentation, shoes that came studded, strapped, buckled and fur-covered and that were also made instantly identifiable by his signature red soles. (The same soles have embroiled him in a long-running trademark infringement dispute with the fashion house Yves Saint Laurent.)

Unlike Mr. Blahnik, Mr. Louboutin seemed to revel in borderline vulgarity. What, after all, is a red sole but an update on the comedian Minnie Pearl’s custom of wearing her hat with the price tag attached? “It was a chic idea for a minute,” said George Malkemus, president of Manolo Blahnik U.S.A. “You wore a red sole, and everyone knew you spent $1,200 or $1,400 for your shoes. And I would say there was a period when certain customers abandoned us and moved into that world.”

And from Andre Talley at Vogue:

Not only did “the cult of the ugly shoe have to end,” as André Leon Talley, a contributing editor of Vogue, recently noted, but unbridled ostentatious spending has come to look a lot less chic when nearly 1 in 10 Americans is unemployed.

“Fashion had to turn on its ugly heel and return to beautiful shoes,” Mr. Talley said, citing among the appealing elements of Manolo Blahnik shoes their sleek lines and absence of gimmickry.

What do you think?  Do you love Louboutins or Blahniks?  Both?

@misssydneyj: He comes off as a misogynist!  Ugh!  I wouldn't wear them if they were free after reading that Daily Mail article.

Mr Louboutin went on to describe how his footwear is designed more for men than it is for women - one of the purposes of his signature red lacquer sole.

'The core of my work is dedicated not to pleasing women, but to pleasing men,' he explained.

@Melini: I'm with you.  I just had a conversation with a colleague about logos.  I bought an LV Alma bag when I was about 24 or 25 and I carried it proudly when I lived in Boston.  Now, I'm embarrassed to carry it.  I look at it and it say "ostentatious" and "desperate" to me.

I don't own a pair of manolo or loubies, but I love the look of loubies for their eccentricities and love manolos for their sleek style but still full of color.  And that article didn't paint mr loubie in a good light.  what an idiot.

I do own some Choos (a gift). And I <3 them.

@Aure: @julies1949: I put the "over" in quotes because I was kind of paraphrasing.  They were talking about buyers moving away from Louboutins.  The Times wasn't saying everyone had to stop buying them.

I Love Shoes and have a closet of a variety of designers based on my personal taste.  Never have been a fan of Manolo but I do have 2 prs of Louies due to some really savvy shopping.  I love Louies cause they are outrageous and I wouldn't trade the 2 I have.  I prefer Dior, Gucci, or Choo over Manolo but its all due to my personal taste.  I don't follow "The Shoe Fashion Advice" cause I buy based on what I want in my shoe collection.  Yes, I buy my babies w/ the intent of wearing over a lifetime. 

@misssydneyj: Wow, I never would spend that much on shoes anyway but that guy comes off as a real jerk to me. Um, what woman DOESN'T look at the shoes when she's trying them on?? What other point is there??

Anyway, I absolutely love shoes, but I'd much rather buy lots of cute and comfy $10 clearance shoes than one pair of designer shoes.

I think many designers have a love for women that comes out in their designs.  Think Donna Karen, Ralph Lauren, Halston, Kors, Marc Jacobs...the list goes on.

Louboutin's statement hints at a strange attitude towards women, IMO.  Comfort isn't important, but being pleasing to men is.  I feel like it's somewhere between outright objectification and misogyny.  It's as if we are the tableau for his product, not a user group that needs to be served by the product.  There are a few designers who strike me as being in the same camp.