Spring's Ugly Shoe Trend

Givenchy Spring 2007Usually I look at designer shoes from the runways with heightened anticipation and expectation - usually I am not let down. It is understood that runways showcase shoes that are more than a bit outlandish in form, while practicality is strictly verboten. But, these shoe styles do set the tone for the current season, future seasons, and for the contemporary and better brands that will be making shoes along these themes for the foreseeable future. Yes - today's Jimmy Choo is tomorrow's Nine West.

Contrary to form, I certainly hope that this spring's shoes go away, and go away quickly. Somehow, some way, all of the "important" designers have attacked everything south of the ankles with the ugly stick.  Someone, please make sure these shoes meet a timely death...now!

Do you think Audrey Hepburn would want to wear any of those Givenchy clunkers? Or those elegant upper East-Siders and those Vera Wang orthopedic flats? Well, if those aren't ugly enough for the nurses, they can find what they need at Dries Van Noten. Emilio Pucci's shoes look like Ziggy Stardust decided to become a stripper named Candy Surprise, and apparently Gary Glitter is designing over at Chanel.  Proenza Schouler is clearly plagued by "the mummy's curse," and who knows what's happening at YSL and Lacroix...

I just don't understand. Spring should be about lightness, femininity, beauty - airy sandals that make you want to traipse along the promenade in a fun dress and big sunglasses. Where is the lovely?  

Take a look - I'm sure you'll agree. They're probably beautifully made with the finest hands Italian cobblers have to offer, and I do appreciate that, but this is ridiculous...

Um, no? Better question: What the f**k? No. No! NO!  

Christian Lacroix
Emilio Pucci
Givenchy
Proenza Schouler
Vera Wang
Yves Saint Laurent
Emmanuel Ungaro
Chanel
Donna Karan
Dries Van Noten
Versace
Emilio Pucci 

Comments

[maura]

i don't mind the chanel one and i think that PS one would look good without a sock

i love my dries, but not the sneaker

[Randall]

What a gaggie gaggle! A spooky springtime at last! Can you see the Givenchy and Lacroix numbers moping around the mega Macrame in Muni's Embarcadero station. Buncha muppets! The Ungaro one creeps me out the most. It has a strong similarity to a recent silhouette put forth by Celine - which doesn't impress but doesn't creepify thanks to Celine's good manners. The Dries one is the most realistic, least obviously attractive and appealing but I think Maura could rock it and not suffer any Nurse Diesel jokes. Woot woo Maura! The Pucci twins (both) are ones I actually like - I'm liking the Matthew Williamson vibe from Pucci lately. London dementia meets Florentine perversity, or is it vice-a-versa?

[Annie]

Alright, I'll give you the Chanel - upon closer inspection they're actually Swarovskis and not just glitter. That's a good thing.
But those Givenchy's are a joke! Women buy shoes to feel pretty, not to feel like they've had their shoes built up to compensate for un-even leg lengths...
So gross it gives me the shivers.

[Tricia]

Hmmm... you know, I think the pair from Ungaro are funky and not in a bad way either - definitely for someone with flashier sensibilities - and I know I have seen that weird clunky sneaker shoe wedge style like the Dries - ugh. That one is the one most likely to sell. Ugh.
I agree that women buy certain styles of shoes to feel pretty - at least most do. I know there are some that will buy whatever's considered hot...but I highly doubt we'll be seeing things like the Givenchy or the YSL styles done by Nine West!

[Genevieve]

Even pretty feet cannot dress up ugly shoes! Blech.

[Patti]

Are these shoes for Hookers??I swear I saw them working the streets downtown in the fifth pair!