I've been reading a lot about Fashion lately and, to my dismay, some treat the subject in a highly close-minded regard. Some of these sources are even magazines and local television. Sure, one has preferences and a particular 'style', if you wish. However, declaring in an outright (and sometimes verging on the aggressive) manner that 'this thing is ugly' or 'could never be beautiful' is not really my idea of entertaining a thought about anything to do with Fashion. Besides, who am I to judge what is beauty?
I think that Fashion should be treated a lot like art. I know what I like and what makes it something which adheres to my likes. I give critique to everything, from things I might like and things which I might personally despise. It's the same with art. You cannot simply point at an Egon Schiele painting and declare that it is ugly. Or, even worse, that you shouldn't be caught dead with it in your home. Who is anyone to judge what any other person might want to wear?
Now, to make my post about something more concrete, I will move on to discuss with you a rising trend in the past few collections:
Flatforms.
Personally, the first notion that precedes me as I inspect these shoes would be a cringe. At first glance, they look strange and unnatural. I believe that this is due to only one thing: previous aesthetic experiences with shoes. Platform-ed shoes should (for lack of a better word), as per usual, elongate the leg, with the heel being higher than the ball of the foot. It is entirely due to our unconscious preconception of shoes and how they should look according to this, that Flatforms might seems slightly weird and visually unbalanced. It is the same with anything. (If you're into Visual Perception I greatly suggest the book Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye)
Personally, the first notion that precedes me as I inspect these shoes would be a cringe. At first glance, they look strange and unnatural. I believe that this is due to only one thing: previous aesthetic experiences with shoes. Platform-ed shoes should (for lack of a better word), as per usual, elongate the leg, with the heel being higher than the ball of the foot. It is entirely due to our unconscious preconception of shoes and how they should look according to this, that Flatforms might seems slightly weird and visually unbalanced. It is the same with anything. (If you're into Visual Perception I greatly suggest the book Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye)
 |
| Prada and Michael Kors |
 |
| Jeffrey Campell and Derek Lam |
An article from Glamour last year, announced that "this love child hybrid between a flat platform is a win-win: You get the added inches (and confidence!) that high heels give you, but without the agony of balancing on glorified toothpicks for hours on end." Now, I do see their point. It's a refreshingly new look from the usual ankle-breakers. Honestly, though, I do not think they could replace actual heels. As I mentioned before, a particular and distinguishing characteristic is that the heel is higher than the ball of the foot, and it is this that particularly elongates the leg. The Flatforms do not do that, they simply give you an added height.
Whilst personally I wouldn't invest in them, as I like versatile shoes which do carry on through a few seasons, I do think that in some quirky way they can be pulled off. Mind you, these flatforms are not actually new this year. In the S/S 2011 they were already on the runway. As I was saying, there are a few of these which are pretty nice. Jefferey Campell's Beebee, for example, did catch my eye, and I might've worn them really- if I had a pair ;).
0 comments