Sole Dilemma

The reason women love shoes is an argument we will never get to the bottom of. We cherish our collection, guard them with our life, can never seem to have enough pairs, and even when we have 50 pairs of unworn shoes in the back of the wardrobe, we can't bring ourselves to part with them.

I looked in my wardrobe the other day and wondered why it is that I have held on to so many shoes that may look great, but are completely unbearable to walk in.

We buy shoes that we know we will wear once and never again, that look adorable, but have a completely impractical design. We put them on display (or in the back of our wardrobe) for unbeknown reasons, yet refuse to discard of them 'incase they come back into fashion', or incase we need them for that dress we never wear that only matches with those particular shoes!

Over our lifetime, I estimate that at least 80% of our shoes will be put on display in the back of our wardrobes, more than the time they spend on our feet. Should we start to consider shoe collecting as an art seeing as though they are more of an exhibit for the major part of their lifetime?

Designs of modern footwear are developed with functionality, history, practicality, and current trends of the market in mind. In the high-end fashion world, some key elements (note: practicality) often seem to be overlooked.

Traditionally, footwear are garments that are worn on the feet to protect against the environment. Designs in shoe making have evolved throughout the decades, following trends and manufacturing popular styles to meet the high-demand of the current market. In our contemporary world, designers seem to be pushing the boundaries and verging on the edge of what is no longer considered functional and what most consider to be impractical.

Throughout the the decades, there have been typical advances in footwear, however in the 21st century, I question whether some modern footwear designs have been made with humans in mind, or made for some incredibly rare species of life, who have been born with the ability to run marathons in 12" heels, and withhold the balance and coordination issues involved in wearing such ridiculous heights of footwear.

An 'ordinary' shoe, whether it be oxford style, moccasin, mary-Jane, or loafer all serve a very functional purpose. To protect and support the feet in a very traditional, sensible design. Modern designs such as the 'Croc' are desired by a fraction of the population, and could be considered by some as a colourful, comfortable necessity. However most people that I know, or rather, most people over the age of 5, view them as a fashion disaster.

Alexander McQueen attempts to defy gravity with his current celebrity-in-demand Armadillo shoes. Measuring in at 12" of terrifying height, one has to question are we honestly living in a world where we consider this to be practical.

For those of us who do not have an immediate death wish, we choose to observe such terrifying shoes from afar, and consider them to be more of an art form than everyday fashion. Even McQueen's models refused to wear the shoes in fear of tripping over on the runway. This just proves that if the boundaries of footwear keep being pushed, unless we consider shoe making as a serious art form, advances in footwear will be perceived as more 'fashion disaster' than 'fashion forward'.

Nobody wants to be seen walking down the street with Kleenex boxes as shoes, so how do you draw the line between fashionable and practical?

I say, if you have fears for your life, are wanting to take out life insurance before you strap them onto your feet, or have a fear of impaling yourself on your heel, then save it for the back of your wardrobe. Considering we will only actually wear about 20% of our lifetime footwear collection, you can choose: sign your life away on the dotted line, or keep them for a nice little work of art in the pool room!