That is the most ridiculously oversimplified post I've read in quite a while. I'm not sure what Christian Louboutin or his shoes did to you to make you spew such vitriol towards him and them, but as I and others have pointed out, the man has created a shape and look that is purely his own. His stilettos, like that of Vivier and Blahnik, have an incredibly distinctive shape that makes them identifiable enough without the red sole. He incorporated fetish wear into his footwear designs and made it mainstream. He was one of the earliest people to push extreme new heel heights as something mainstream. He made hidden platforms a must in shoe design. And really, what did the likes of Vivier or Blahnik do that's so different from Louboutin? For Vivier it was the flat pilgrim buckle and the comma heel. For Blahnik it was the pointed toe and the slender stiletto. For Louboutin it was the platform and the red sole. I fail to see how he's not right alongside them as someone who took something that wasn't their own invention and made it instantly recognizable as theirs.
Don't get me wrong, I hate how ubiquitous his name has become and I find his more outré offerings of late a little tired, but to say he's not done anything that's his own and boil his entire success down to the fact that he makes his soles red is simply incorrect, not to mention a sign that your opinion is too biased to be given much merit.
And to say that the Real Housewives and J.Lo are who have made him a name is also untrue. Anyone who watched it -- and who didn't? -- can recall when his pink ruffled sandal was made an actual plot point in an episode of Sex and the City, waaaay before his shoes were on everybody's feet.
Last edited by a moderator:
...
...
