Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Why we worry about sleaze-"protetction" | Main | Jean Charles de Menezes »

August 16, 2005

Katherine Harris probably has 3 pairs

I'm probably a bad person for taking time out of a busy news cycle to comment on the ugliest shoes in the world.

I'm probably also a bad person for being pissed off that anyone would spend $765.00 on these aesthetic travesties.

Be that as it may...
Nmx6426_mp_1

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d8345fce0869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Katherine Harris probably has 3 pairs:

» Look on my shoes, ye mighty, and puke from dustbury.com
The Manolo, he normally has the most exquisite of tastes, but this is more than anyone should have to look at. I can't help but think that this shoe would... [Read More]

Comments

They kinda match my bermudas and blood bank t-shirt, but clash with the gimme cap. Is there a belt to harmonize the deal?

I'm a shoe fiend and normally love Manolos, but those are hideous. I'm picturing them on some scary, scrawny New York fashion harpie who still thinks that a Versace minidress is appropriate daywear.

They're definitely not you.

Cool shoes. Do they do a loafer?

They're so... eighties.

Funny how women, many of whom would have no trouble thinking of BDSM afficionados as "weird", have no trouble giving someone a thousand dollars to give themselves permanent nerve damage in their lower extremities. Not to mention the pain things like that can cause to the lower back.


Even the people I know who are into rough trade aren't *that* kinky.

Um,

um,

er,

"striking" (coughs gently)

You are bad. Beauty is culturally defined, or at least, in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, I'm worse. I think ridiculous clothes are cute, which I admit, reveals a kind of bdsm. Sorry, I can't help it; I'm willing to reciprocate.

What you can't tell from the photo is that each of those little balls is actually a little jingle bell. They are quite festive.

I like 'em.

When I was young, I used to be able to go hiking in stilletos. But now, the only time I wear heels is in bed.

Total drag-queen pumps. Darn skippy Katherine "Kabuki" Harris has three pairs.

I saw your post just as I was thinking, What's up with Jay-Z's Manolos obsession?

I don't know, how often do you get to buy a piece of clothing, or for that matter any other consumer item, that is guaranteed to be the absolute best in the world at what it does? In this case, being ugly.

Actually, on the right woman, they could work.

But $765? No.

I sometimes suspect that famous designers do stuff like that on a bet:

"Dude, these women are so crazy that they'll buy anything I make and slap my name onto! Anything! I could make, um, paisley heels in hot pink and aqua and they'll still buy them!"

"Dude, no way. You are so lying."

"Dude, I swear. Look, I'll even get it in the Neiman Marcus catalog. This is gonna be totally awesome, dude."

Y'know what's really 80's, inasmuch as it reminds me of high school?

Picking on other people's taste, in a self-aggrandising, 'I'm cool because I have sensibly priced shoes that look utilitarian', kind of way.

You can argue the aesthetics of the shoes all day, and you'll always be wrong, as that's all eye-of-the-beholder. The urge to denigrate the taste of others, however, seems pretty much a low one, regardless of your sensible shoes credentials.

"The urge to denigrate the taste of others, however, seems pretty much a low one, regardless of your sensible shoes credentials. "

Any claim to haut couture is an open invitation to mockery. This is not a matter of taste, it is a matter of pretension. If it were just a question of taste, the designer would not have their name sewn into the insole.

"You can argue the aesthetics of the shoes all day, and you'll always be wrong, as that's all eye-of-the-beholder. The urge to denigrate the taste of others, however, seems pretty much a low one, regardless of your sensible shoes credentials. "

Beast, now that you've had this revelation, do you want to reconsider and un-insult smaller men everywhere by withdrawing your derision of professional prize fights between men in the 135 lb weight class as "midget boxing?"

Or is debating a matter of taste only silly and low when it's a matter that you have no strong view on?

Midgets don't count. They're too little.

Since some of my ideas are contradictory, all of my ideas are wrong, is that the point Thomas?

Or would you prefer to argue this on another level?

(PS: I'm sorry you're a midget. I didn't know.)

The interesting thing to me about aesthetics is that a certain amount of objectivity can be established once you have an audience or a critical community with a certain degree of agreed on standards and practices. This phenomenon gives us everything from dog shows to classical music.

The main difference between aesthetics and ethics is that in aesthetics the community that creates the standards has no real reason to persist, because they are not as deeply linked to the needs of humans and societies.

In any case I think there are enough shared aesthetic norms in the industrialized world to say that those shoes are really ugly, but might acquire camp value on a drag queen.

"Since some of my ideas are contradictory, all of my ideas are wrong, is that the point Thomas? "

Not my point. My point was that you're in no position to call other people's aesthetic judgments as "low" or mean-spirited under the maxim of De Gustibus Non Disputandum Est. I'm not accusing you of inconsistency, which is often accidental. I'm accusing you of willful hipocrisy.

Gee, got a tissue? Sniff, I'm hurt at being called 'wilful'

I'm not gonna dignify the classic fallacy of your argument by debating you. I'll point out that I never criticised the aesthetics of teeny-boxing: I actually said it never interested me.

But I'll point out that I didn't call other people's aesthetic judgements mean spirited, I called the urge to denigrate the taste of others 'low'.

I'm not sure why you're so angry that you can't parse English or debate without fallacy. You shouldn't be so angry at me. After all, I didn't make you short, god did that.

Lindsay, a few questions come to mind: How do you define bad person? What would you rather do (or see be done) with $765.00? Would you consider an update showing us a picture of shoes that you like? And finally, would you ever consider writing “The Bad Person’s Guide to Aesthetic Travesties”?

1) you called lightweights "midget[s]." That's offensive both to little people and to lightweights.

2) denigrating fashion taste is "low," but insulting short people is, what, the noblest calling of the octagon-fighting warrior?

To my eye, the style appears to be Neo Indo-arabic-persian. I think the Global War against Asia is setting fashion trends.

Jesus Thomas, spring for that penis-enlargement surgery, will you?

The comments to this entry are closed.