weapon of choice
While composing an earlier piece on my dissatisfaction with a stiletto-saturated market, I got to pondering the etymology of the narrow-heeled shoe itself. Such footwear, as I learned, takes its name from a type of dagger – a weapon. Technically, "stiletto" once referred to the heel itself but now functions as the name of the shoe.
This in turn led me to thinking about Chanel's "Miami Vice" gun-heeled shoes. First strutted in by Leigh Lezark at Paris Fashion Week, the pumps were then sensationalized in the mainstream media's coverage of Madonna's donning of them. Madonna received much flack for this; the UK's Mothers Against Murder and Aggression deemed her choice "irresponsible" in its glamorization of violence, "insensitive" in regards to the "young people...dying every day."
By no means do I approve of mass fashion's frivolization of guns. A symbol that was once likely a pointed observation of war and murder – a critique or even denunciation thereof – is now no more than another "cool" graphic like skulls or antlers. (Writers sure must've felt clever in making puns about "killer shoes.") What seems to have escaped the media and audience alike, though, is another explanation for Chanel's firearm replica: Perhaps the gun-heel is a play on our acceptance of the word stiletto – again, a knife, also for killing – as a means of referring to narrow, high heels.
Extrapolating, might our absorption and abandonment of the original meaning of "stiletto" be a embrace of all its combativeness? Did it take the Miami Vice to glaringly remind us of that? Or, was the house just capitalizing on the sensationalism of the shoe? Meanwhile, we have bath product purveyor Lush's Bath Bombs. Racy marketing, yes, but isn't our acceptance of such things effectively an acquiescence to and absolution of the violence these devices can wreak?
There is exploitation, trivialization and glorification. There is commentary on, judgment of and incitement to act on our culture. We are often left to make up their own minds as to what is which. Without guidance and context, we may misinterpret.
Many of the comments regarding Madonna's footwear were of the "They're just shoes, it's just fashion, chill out" ilk. Actually, no. Whether designing or dressing, we must take responsibility for what we put out into the world. Certainly, that doesn't mean we shouldn't create offensive art or wear what we want to. It means: We should know what possible messages we might be sending out. It means: When we have positions of power and influence – whether we be politicians, pop stars, designers, or even bloggers like many of you out there – it is incumbent on us to be deliberate and make clear our intentions.
Why?
Because we all have a hand, however large or small, in making our own lives and our world what they are.
Shouldn't our contributions count the way we want them to?
14 comments:
Well written and you make an excellent point about the gun and stiletto! Honestly, I don't have a problem with the Chanel shoes, but I am aware of what it 'promotes', and that is something I'm not okay with. I think the same can be said about some of the streetwear brand tees with their bullets and gang violence references. It's made to look cool, but it's anything but.
Thanks! I don't have a problem with the existence of Chanel shoes either; it's more what the reasoning is behind it and how people choose to use (i.e., wear) them. Good point -- the violent references in "urban" wear nowadays is definitely all sensationalism and "coolness."
I have to say, these shoes are not my cup of tea. I spent a summer in Kenya, and the "soldiers" (to use the term very very loosely) walk around with machine guns and pistols. Anything even remotely resembling a gun makes me nervous.
I think that experience really puts this sort of thing in perspective. When you witness first-hand a gun being used to spread fear and discord across a nation, it's difficult to contextualize it in any other way.
On a completely different note, it was very nice to meet you! I'm sorry I was so discombobulated.
I think there's a difference between actively promoting violence and using the gun as iconic pop imagery almost.... I certainly don't look at the shoes and think 'Oooh...violent...' but more like 'Oooh... funny!'....it's like a tacky pastiche of a gun if you really look at it.... though having said that, I think for example, McQ's ads featuring swastikas are far more sinister and he should answer for that so-called bit of creative expression....
oh lady e: Thank you for sharing your experiences. It's so easy for us in First World countries -- as exemplified in pop culture's cavalier attitude towards weapon imagery and the depiction of violence -- to disregard the horrific, imminently life-threatening and conditions elsewhere. I also feel that even if one hasn't been to a war-torn country, one is still capable of educating oneself, and understanding and showing compassion toward others.
Aside, it was very nice to meet you as well! I'm sorry I couldn't talk longer; I was torn between following you out of the tent to chat and my plans to head backstage to do additional event coverage.
Susie: I wasn't talking about actively promoting violence at all. I was talking about inconsiderate trivialization of a device that kills people versus use of the image to create awareness. There is certainly some wit to the design that intrigues me, but I don't know whether it was of a cavalier or intelligent, thoughtful nature. In a way, your casual attitude towards the gun as pop icon could be seen as characteristic of our culture's acquiescence and acceptance of violence. At the same time, I appreciate your questioning of the McQ ads.
In some cases, it can be difficult to anticipate ALL of the messages we might be sending out. People inevitably use their own experiences as a lens through which they interpret what they see, and in many cases we will never be able to prepare for the gamut of possible responses to what we create or say.
But in THIS case - and in the case of any symbol as powerfully violent as a gun - it's easier to guess at most of the possible responses. I'm relatively sure that the intention of these shoes was cheek ... and capitalizing on the cache of something dangerous/other. But it appears that little consideration was given to how this treatment of a gun might affect kids, victims of gun violence, and other groups who are more sensitive and impressionable. Either that, or consideration of those groups was vetoed in favor of the publicity that would be generated by releasing such a controversial product ...
i definitely think that everything we put on makes a statement, whether we want it to or not.
when i was younger, i used to be really into "punk rock" and such, and i would wear all these t shirts with bands printed across the top. eventually my mother started researching the bands i was advertising across my chest and she questioned whether or not i should want to be associated with bands that promote drug use, promiscuous sex, violence etc. ever since then i have tried to be careful about what i inadvertently advertise when i dress.
very thought-provoking post.
I agree that there is a problem with these shoes, but I think that the problem is not moral but aesthetic: they look terrible, like a bad gimmick. I don't agree with the idea that they're wrong because of the 'statement' they send out. We constantly watch movies and (ahem) read books that include violence of all kinds. It is crazy to imagine that all of these cultural productions can or should make didactic statements, in part because we cannot control the meanings imparted. The recent New Yorker cover of Obama & his wife was a good example. In the case of these shoes, someone (Roland Barthes, preferably) could make a great case that these shoes show weapons underfoot, where they belong, or conversely that they are the ontological underpinning of high fashion.
I didn't react this way to the Chanel shoes at all. It's probably because I know many people who like guns because they hunt, for their history, for their craftmanship, etc. Other weapons are admired and collected as well. And this doesn't mean that they are insensitive to the horrors of violence and war. But what everyone says is true. We are always sending a message, but it can be interpreted in many ways.
Oh, I completely understand. We were actually in a bit of a hurry to get home, anyway. The guy isn't "into fashion", and was getting pretty antsy. :)
On another note - I'm wondering what you think of women who wear sword charms on their necklaces (I'm mostly referring to Gisele Bundchen), because it embodies their "fighting spirit". Yea or nay?
Thanks for the great post!
While I feel like a number of people understand that our fashion decisions project a message to the world, and that we should decide on that message, people often assume they have full control of the message.
A more light example than the gun-stiletto would be trying to wear a tuxedo as a casual outfit. Just because you decide a tuxedo is casual doesn't mean you'll be interpreted that way. One always has to consider the interpretation of the intended message (probably one of the more difficult tasks in fashion).
Well said, dreamecho. As a mother of young children, I've become much more conscious of the messages I send through what I wear, and would probably be uncomfortable answering the inevitable, "why are you wearing guns on your feet, Mommy?" question with these Chanel shoes.
Sal: Your first sentence is very true, but to add to what you later said, when something so powerful as death is at the forefront, a person's gotta take responsibility for what they're wearing. To me, that doesn't mean NOT wearing the item in question -- what matters is what you do with it and whether you own up to your actions. The publicity thing...sadly, the is kind of the likely scenario.
copperoranges: Thanks for sharing. It's awesome that your mom questioned and respected you, rather than told you outright what to do.
Anon: Thank you for your thoughts. I didn't say the existence of these shoes were wrong. As a matter of fact, I do like that notion your put forward of weapons underfoot. At least that would be purposeful. But, it goes the same for other aspects of culture -- sensationalized, money-making violence in film and literature only serves to encourage a violent culture. I would extend my argument to such usage. We ARE taught to accept or, in some cases, even act out violence. Meanwhile, violent acts portrayed in the context of a greater story, one with a moral or one that questions your values, can, CAN, teach us something of value.
Anon: Good point. Weapons, with all their power and history, are to be respected. But if one is going to subvert the image, one that has so much weight and meaning to it, one should do so with intention and knowledge of what they're doing.
Oh Lady E: Like I've been saying in some of my previous comments, I think that one should at least have a purpose in wearing it, such as personal identification/meaning, subversion/challenging of the thing, etc. So, the sword charm...I don't know the whole story behind it. In a way, it sounds a little cheesy/lame. What would be interesting is if she was descended from Vikings or something and that was part of her heritage. On one hand, you could argue that it being a weapon promotes violence regardless, since she's not subverting it. On the other hand, you could say that swords aren't really used these days, they're more an artifact from the past and therefore don't contribute in the same way the likeness of a gun might.
Barry Wright, III: Good point about not having full control over that message. I think where that becomes important though, is when you "communicate" (in clothes, words, whatever) about life and death. Wearing a tuxedo isn't going to offend or uphold anyone's attitude towards human life, so I say if it floats your boat, screw what others think. But self-awareness is important, and it's handy to know how others might interpret one wearing formal clothes to go grocery shopping.
Iheartfashion: I really appreciate your perspective. It's easy for someone young and without major responsibilities to blow off the significance of a weapon, but it's a whole different ball game when a person has to answer to one's children, knowing full well the influence he/she has on them. Which, of course, is not to say that a parent (or anyone) absolutely, positively shouldn't wear gun shoes -- rather, if a parent is going to do something like that, I think she's gotta be prepared to defend and explain, honestly, her choice to her children.
I agree that we need to take responsibility for what we wear, but I think that monitoring the graphics we use is a very superficial approach. What matters more is where our clothes come from. If we are wearing shoes made from mistreated cow, produced by sweatshop labor, aren't we sending a worse message? Worse still, the message is subliminal and thus more likely to be absorbed with little or no consideration.
Seeing a gun on a shoe is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of violence. Little kids shouldn't be reading tabloids anyways, for a number of reasons. The behind-the-scenes practices we condone are much more likely to have an effect on what we think is cool and how we view the world.
Post a Comment