He’s one of the most important people in the fashion industry – and certainly the most famous living shoe designer. In fact, Christian Louboutin’s lipstick red lacquered soles have become so entwined with the concept of glamour and luxury, that they were even subject of a courtroom battle when he tried to sue the folks at YSL for copying his trademark colour, red. (Which, incidentally, first came about in 1992 when Louboutin painted a sole with red nail varnish.)
But now the shoe designer is embroiled in another controversy – over his new calendar-style lookbook, which references surrealist photographer Guy Bourdin. The flip book of high-gloss still-life portraits, stars a dozen pairs of beautiful Louboutin ankle-breakers, gently nestled in glossy boxes and crisp tissue paper... and attached to a pair of amputated mannequin legs (or, ‘gambettes‘ as the lookbook refers to them in Italian), which are severed at various parts of the leg.
The Telegraph have taken particular umbrage to the images. While they caveat their damning review by saying that Louboutin is, in person, ‘a carefree spirit who thinks he’s subversive’, their view on the lookbook is clear. ‘You can artfully arrange the beautiful tissue paper as much as you like, Monsieur Louboutin, but if those legs and arms are meant to represent real human limbs then they must have been separated from the rest of the bodies by some pretty revolting act of mutilation,’ writes Kate Finnigan. ‘I’m sure these pictures are only “meant” to be interpreted as vastly witty and a funny poke at luxury. So why do I feel like the joke is on the women who’ve spent a lot of money on Louboutin's shoes?’
Others, though, are unalarmed by the images – with Style.com calling them ‘a pop art riff on luxury’. ‘When was the last time you saw a face featured in a footwear campaign?’ they posit, quite reasonably. Plus, there’s ‘no blood and no gore’ they note somewhat blandly.
It’s certainly true that a campaign for Pretty Polly tights, for example, reveres the leg and the leg alone – but isn’t the difference is that you assume that the legs are attached to the torso? At least, there is no indicication given that they are not.
And besides, while Louboutin's images – like all those provocative fashion images before – are no doubt designed to be a talking point, isn’t it a bit ironic that although they’ve succeeded in their mission, everyone’s talking about the ampu-theatre titilation. Rather than the actual shoes themselves.
Follow Pandora on Twitter @pinsykes
This article originally appeared on The Debrief.