At £330, the surreal shoes whose heels will keep you on your toes

[RedGlitter]

They're ankle-threatening, ludicrous, impractical and overpriced. But these shoes will be a huge hit.

It looks like something Salvador Dali would dream up.
Or some sort of reject from the footwear factory.
This is, in fact, the world's first back-to-front shoe, courtesy of designer Marc Jacobs.
Whether you think it is a gimmick too far or a piece of fashion genius depends how far up the fashionista ladder you are - on a scale of one to crazy.


Heels have been getting more and more bonkers since the fashion police decreed that kitten heels were over a couple of years ago.
We've had towering platforms, clogs, wedges, block heels and conical stilettos.
But they've all had one thing in common: They were at the back of the shoe.
You know, the area where your heel actually is.
But the Marc Jacobs shoe twist turns conventional fashion ( not to mention orthopaedic) wisdom on its head and places the heel at the front.
A chunky, four-inch heel nestles horizontally just under the ball of the foot. Where you'd expect a heel, there is nothing but fresh air.
The centre of gravity therefore is somewhere under the arch of the foot, forcing the whole body to tilt forward.


The effort of staying upright in them will be the equivalent of an advanced level Pilates class.
Relax, try to lean back on your heels, and you'll fall backwards.
The must-have accessory to match the shoe then ought to be a crash helmet.
To buy into the trend will cost you £270 for a plain pair and £330 for a more elaborate design decorated with metal swirls and Swarovski crystals.
They are part of the American designer's 2008 collection, which attracted mixed reviews at New York fashion week.
Jacobs himself described his new collection as "the emperor's new clothes" and said it aimed to overturn conventional fashion.
Podiatrists, who already frown on stilettos, are far from impressed.
Lisa Surridge, a lecturer at the Smae Institute specialising in foot health, declared: "These shoes would impair the normal function of the foot."
They are absurd, torturous, dangerous and wearable only by women who never have to walk further than the nearest red carpet and have more money than sense.
I give it a week before Victoria Beckham is spotted in them.

[chonsigirl]

That is for sure the silliest pair of shoes I have ever seen...................

[along-for-the-ride]

Just Paris Hiltons cup of tea.



No way would I wear them.

[AussiePam]

Interesting. I've always thought the imposition (through media conditioning and psychological/emotional propoganda) of "fashion" on women is a control mechanism, among other things to slow them down so they can't run away. Who could have breathed much in the old laced corsets? Who could climb a tree in a tight mini skirt? Are high heels a modern form of the old Chinese custom of footbinding?

[laneybug]

First, let me say this: women are not controlled or forced to wear anything (unless you're in a country where women don't have rights.) Secondly, women choose to wear something or transform their bodies in other ways. The media may say one thing, but that certainly doesn't mean a woman must follow.

So. Let me ask this. If a woman wants to wear a funky looking shoe that injures the body, so what? What consequence does that have on you or me, as women? What one woman does with her body does not define or limit the femininity and womanhood of another.

Also, fashion has long been a form of expression and, at times, artistic creativity. Fashion continues to push the rules and boundaries, as does anything else, even if it may be extreme to the point of harm.

But, again, no one is forcing us to wear those ridiculous shoes, so where is the problem? Getting offended at what another person chooses to do when it is doing no harm to anyone else does not make much sense and only furthers the stereotype that women are "catty" and each other's worst enemies.

[RedGlitter]

Good grief. Another feminist soapbox opportunity.

Generally speaking, women will wear damn near anything. That's been proven.
There's nothing catty about having an opinion and voicing it. I think any woman who would wear these shoes would have to be an insipid fool. Even the creator calls them the "emperor's new clothes," now that ought to say a lot. I wear comfy shoes most of the time but in a dress, I will suffer and wear heels because they make me look good. Everybody's got their own limits, these shoes would be beyond the limit for a lot of us. I had an eloquent post forming but I'm so tired of seeing people have to defend everything they say on here, that I realize I just shouldn't be bothered. Piffle.

[weeder]

Ridiculous. The designer is laughing his ass off. Many of them hate women, and this is pure revenge.

[Patsy Warnick]

A man must of designed these shoes
The same man who designed the BRA

Who said everything had to be bundled up ??

When I get home the first 2 things I take off are my shoes & bra
sometimes at the same time

I'm a multi-tasker..
Patsy

[Scrat]

I don't know any woman who would wear those, even amongst the ones attracted to storefront displays like gnats to bug zappers.

[AussiePam]

I'm all for people of all genders to wear or not-wear whatever they choose. I've been out in the country all Saturday, far from computers, far from controversy. As I re-entered the city limits and stopped at a red light, onto the road ran a young man, totally naked. The weather is still fairly cold here, but he was undaunted, happily doing his thing, making his own delectable fashion statement.



The foregoing has absolutely nothing to do with the photo below. The B is for Bodacious.