babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » World's most expensive shoes

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: World's most expensive shoes
Eauz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3057

posted 06 May 2003 08:43 PM      Profile for Eauz   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
$$$

I thought that after all these years of technology, and we end up with shoes like this? I want rocket boosters and special ability to it. They were probably built in a sweat shop or something...?

1,000,000.00 United Kingdom Pounds = 2,250,468.35
Canada Dollars.


From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 06 May 2003 09:23 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 06 May 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At that price, they'd better magically take you home when you click your heels together three times!
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 07 May 2003 01:17 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That kind of conspicuous consumption is an obscenity.
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 May 2003 08:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would it be an obscenity if it were a priceless painting? One person's art...
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 07 May 2003 10:22 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nah, it's an obscenity. They're shoes ferchrissakes.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 07 May 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They are shoes but only in the same sense that Faberge eggs are eggs.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 07 May 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I beg to differ. You can wear those shoes as shoes. You cannot eat a Faberge egg. Think of the context, the sybolism. Did Imelda Marcos get yanked up on her excessive huge collection of eggs? In the eighteenth century, was it the colour of your eggs, or the height of your heeled shoes that conferred social status? How about those teeny tiny jewelled slippers that Chinesse women of social stature crippled themselves to wear? Faberge eggs aren't valued simply because of the materials used to create them - they're genuine works of art. These shoes look like regular evening shoes, except that they're made not with silvered thread and rhinestones, but with platinum and rubies.

If I were a Lilliputian, I'd buy the egg argument. But I ain't. Shoes are often symbols of status and disposable income and gender inequity. To make a pair that costs 1M, that's not art. It's idiocy.

[ 07 May 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 07 May 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Failing to see how Gulliver fits in. Nevertheless, these are no different than any of the other types of over the top fashions and other toys rich people ornament themselves with and hardly worth the extremity of feeling being aroused.

And the foot binding seems like a stretch to me.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 May 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And the foot binding seems like a stretch to me.

Ouch!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 07 May 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree its decadent..... but my question is can you wear them? Would anyone wear them????
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 07 May 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Failing to see how Gulliver fits in.
HELLO, REBECCA TO DEBRA'S SENSE OF HUMOUR! It's the bit in Gulliver's Travel's where the Lilliputians and the Brobdingnagians (I think) bicker over which end of an egg to open? Political satire at it's best.

Hell, I thought it worked on a couple of levels.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 May 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just my opinion, but I'm always a little less impressed by "art" made with ridiculously expensive and opulent materials. I'd rather see a silk purse made from a sow's ear than a silk purse made of solid platinum anyday.

I'd love to see some wag turn the art world on its ear with a crying clown made entirely of precious and semi-precious stones and metal. Kitsch, but with a hefty price tag.

"It's tacky, but it's so expensive I'm supposed to like it... I think...?"


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 07 May 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dogs playing poker with jewel encrusted collars.

Rebecca my quickness to pick left about 3 weeks ago, that's when the family got sick and it's been making the rounds among us ever since.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 07 May 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bummer. We went through that too, March and April, and yeah, my humour suffered too. Sorry to hear you're all under the weather.

There's no accounting for taste. Actually, from a style point of view the sandals themselves look okay. If you want to see hideous AND grotesquely expensive, a tour of the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto is in order.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 May 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They were designed by Stuart Weitzman. £100,000 of the sale price will be donated to UK children's charities.

It's one way to get the filthy rich to donate.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 May 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Foot binding fits in because it is the most extreme example of the decorative shoe and foot fetish displaying that one can afford to support an economically "useless" wife, while keeping her literally hobbled and housebound. Though some degree of foot binding was even found among peasants - and banned by the 1949 Revolution - the extreme examples made women dependent and unable to do chores or even heavy housework. Their baby feet could show off the daintiest of richly crafted and embroidered slippers though.

The sandals look fine for occasional formal wear, but very few people could actually walk in them. I worked doing research in a retirement home where the women were young during the peak of the stiletto heel craze and they all have crippled feet as a result. No, not as bad as foot binding, but not completely different.

Yeah, the Bata shoe museum gives a fascinating look at footwear and status.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 May 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been to the Bata shoe museum... they had some very cool stuff. It's amazing what sense you can get from eras by what people put on their feet. I found most amazing the Venetian platform shoes from, oh, when was it... mid to late 1400s? Can't remember... Anyway, the platforms were 3 feet high, you couldn't walk in them unassisted, but height was status. And they were beautifully coloured and sculpted, too. Bizarre.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 May 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, the platforms were 3 feet high, you couldn't walk in them unassisted

An abbreviated version of this was "the height" of fashion on Queen West a few years ago. Bizarre then too (and apparently responsible for many an ER visit).


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 May 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd imagine that in Venice, platform shoes began so as to be able to keep one's feet dry and clean during the repeated floods in that city of reclaimed land and canals. Then they'd just get higher and higher to "look down on" the plebeans.

Those canals sure do get odiferous on a hot day. And in Amsterdam, in rainy winters, walking on the pavement as the wet just seems to seep up from below is a strange, unnerving sensation.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 May 2003 04:06 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but I don't really know the genesis of it... However, considering how small the average person was at that time, under 5 feet for a woman, it was a huge boost upwards. They had special attendants to walk with them, and I suspect they never walked far or had to worry much about wet feet.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 May 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, its a somewhat less mutilating variation on the foot-binding idea - not only conspicuous consumption of a luxury good but conspiciously making onself incapable of working - and requiring others to tend to our every need.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 May 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. They reminded me, that way, of the extreme panniers that women wore in the time before the French Revolution.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 08 May 2003 03:09 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Art is art because the aesthetic value is greater than the value of the materials use in the making.

If one substituted cut class costume jewelry for the diamonds, what you have is a pair of shoes you'd laugh at in "Value Village" and might pick up for thier value in kitch, but nothing else.

It might be different for Fabergé eggs. The intricacy of the work probably makes it art no matter what the materials used.

I'm not sure where one crosses the line, going from having something nice to conspicuous consumption.

But I know those shoes have more than just a toe over it.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 May 2003 08:11 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do they make a "comfort" version? Something like Hush Puppies or Clark's?
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 08 May 2003 11:20 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lagatta, with a pair of comfy shoes, a handful of rhinestones and a hot glue gun, you'd be amazed at what I can put together for you!

I think shoes can be art... I've been known to buy a pair of shoes simply for their aesthetic value (but only if they're an amazingly good deal, these days). It's a self-adornment thing, an expression, which is what all art should be. I also have a thing for flamboyant and beautiful scarves, some of which I also consider art -- like the hand-painted silk chiffon scarf I bought from an artist in Vancouver. Wearable art, I tell you.

Now, I don't approve of the conspicuous consumption factor in the shoes in question, but that makes a statement in itself, doesn't it...


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 09 May 2003 06:01 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think shoes can be art

A sign I saw posted over a display of fetish shoes at North Bound Leather in Toronto:

"You lick'em, you bought 'em."


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 May 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Shoe porn, eh?
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 May 2003 10:10 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed. I think someone could, and many probably have, written thesis' on shoes and human sexuality.

It seems odd at first, but after thinking about it, no odder than the connections between other attire and sexuality.

Clothes are not just for utilitarian purposes, they've long ago been co-opted to express many things, not the leasto of which are sexual status, and artistic creativity.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mags
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4085

posted 10 May 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for mags     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems to me there are only two kinds of shoes in the world. "F**k you" shoes like Docs and Blundstones which are just as unaffordable for me as the "F**k me" shoes crafted by Jimmy Choo and Manola. If I had a choice at all between wearing either pleather shoes from Zellers, second-time-around shoes from ValueVillage or these ultimate "f**k me" shoes made of platinum and rubies, I think I'm choosing platinum and rubies.
From: British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca