20 hours ago
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
The moment I saw these unusual, colourful, strappy mules from Irregular Choice, several things occurred to me:
a) As with most IC shoes, they are thoroughly impractical...
b) ...but gorgeous to look at
c) I would really like to hang these on my wall...
d)... like a Mondrian
e) But these are supposed to be shoes, right?
Way before the "it" shoe was a twinkle in the eye of the designer marketing machine, IC have done the kind of shoes that make a statement. Their aesthetic might not be to everyone's taste but to girls like me who like their footwear with a bit of drama and/or a sense of humour they are spot on.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that IC never let a wearable shoe (let's not even talk comfort, that's a whole different shoe shop) get in the way of an interesting design. And therein lies the problem. I have a long and illustrious history of really liking IC shoes, the evidence of which can still be found in the back of my shoe closet. Never have shoes looked so good yet hurt so bad.
I don't get it. Everytime I see IC shoes, I'm a drooling wreck but I know even before I put them on that they're not going to work in any practical way. Why, when shoes look this good has no one figured out exactly how to make them wearable and why am I still drawn to them despite the obvious drawback?
Could there be a rationale for shoes as object d'art, shoes that you can leave on the coffee table as a talking point or display in your own little shoe collection to be seen not worn? Because if there is, then I would buy these shoes in a second. As shoes they may be a total failure but as art? They're kinda perfect.