Guest Shoe Post by Archigram aka the Father of the Blogger

there was once an old lady who lived in a shoe

she had so many children she did not know what to do

then whipped them all soundly and sent them to bed

she gave them some broth without any bread

‘The Old Woman Who Lived In A Shoe’ Traditional, circa 1794.

I believe that in the 1794 “Gammer Gurton’s Garland of Nursery Songs” the last line was:

she whipped all their bums and sent them to bed

With red-bummed wailing children now safely abed she could get on with the things that mattered in life, she went out to downtown to Wherever’s Ville to buy some more shoes or, at least, to have a wee peek at them in big shiny shop windows. It always put a spring in her heels to think about whipping bums red and then going out to buy new shoes for, lets say, a little dessert. What is it about shoes and who needs bread anyway?

Yesterday, I dropped into a shoe shop in Glasgow to look at some fine shoes, not quite bespoke, like Prince Charlie’s shoes are, but expensive, nonetheless, and Italian. They cost three hundred pounds. A more reasonably priced, but nice looking pair of shoes, cost one hundred and fifty pounds. I pondered on the reason that I might not part with either of these sums for a pair of shoes and on the obverse side of that coin wondered why women would not hesitate for a minute to part with such a sum if a pair of shoes consumed them with delight. If I was pushed to a decision making point, I would not hesitate to part with a big cash outlay for a pair of shoes which were made just for my differently sized feet alone and, of course, were stylish to ‘boot’. Excuse the last word please. Anyway,

What is an architect doing talking about shoes? A revisit to my opening gambit will explain all.

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe”.

Is it possible to design a shoe in which one old lady, let alone one with “so many children”, could live? A cursory examination of the work of the architect Bruce Goff, an Okie, might indicate that such a thing is entirely possible. (check out the Bavinger house or the Japanese pavilion in Los Angeles).

What is it about architects that they feel the necessity to hallmark their careers with an “odd” building or two? Sometimes, the odd looking buildings are their careers. The fashionable term is ICONIC buildings. Like any expensively made and exquisite to look at shoe, such structures leak, fall apart, have a life of their own but people flock to see them or shakily shoogle about on them as in the specific case of shoes.

Think Bilbao, think Guggenheim.

Visitors to the “goog” will accommodate its idiosyncracies, gasp with spurious delight and take endless wee photos with their cell-phones to send the ‘folks back home’. Trendy gals will squeeze their feet into shoes designed for people with no feet and walk as if their buttocks were glued together to help alleviate the wincing painful torture.

Think John Wayne, who always walked as if he had left the toilet lid inside his pants.

I have about ten pairs of shoes some of which have never walked beyond the box they came in. I have a deeply uncluttered detestation of brown shoes with the exception of ox-blood coloured penny loafers. So, my shoes are all black but, elegant.  Brown shoes are the death-knell of fashion in the same way that green shirts, relentlessly awful diagonal striped matching ties and brown suits are for the egregiously aesthetically deprived.

I watch with amazed bewilderment, women wandering around men’s shops with a suit and a shirt in their arms  checking out hideous ties against the gruesome twosome and think to myself, Good God!  It gets even worse when they check out underwear as well. The ultimate in male castration. Sometimes there are wee guys, with a shadowing wife, trying out a suit jacket with sleeves hanging down three inches below their wrist and she, the matron of high fashion, telling them that they look great. Finally, getting them to button all three buttons on a three button jacket with the dreadful tie/shirt concoction. The brown decades, indeed. I think Coco, no! not Chanel, the other variety.

Shoes are great and stylish additions to any man’s wardrobe. the more you have the better. Perhaps one day an architectural story will follow.

archigram

11 thoughts on “Guest Shoe Post by Archigram aka the Father of the Blogger

  1. I love that your dad has guest posted. That is ten thousand shades of awesome! What a great post. Merging shoes and his architecture all tied together with a very old nursery rhyme. I’m still laughing at his description of wives taking their husbands clothes shopping. Thank you Archigram!

  2. Fantastic.

    Two lines that stood out:

    “Think John Wayne, who always walked as if he had left the toilet lid inside his pants.”

    and

    “Brown shoes are the death-knell of fashion”.

    Thank you, Archigram, for your wise words.

    And thank you, Gabfran, for sharing him with us.

  3. What a fascinating detour from your usual stories. ‘The Old Woman Who Lived In A Shoe’ tied in with an architect father…

  4. CC, you are so lucky to have a dad with a sense of humour. It partly explains your own brand of madness. Like the NDM, I thought the John Wayne quote was sold GOLD ! 🙂 We want more!………..

  5. The most I have ever spent on a pair of shoes was $500 for a pair of Fluevogs. The most my husband has ever spent on one pair of shoes was $150, and I had to talk him into spending that much.

    He has had those shoes for 10 years now, and he wears them to practically every social function we attend, including our wedding.

    I have had my Fluevogs for a mere 4 months, and am loathe to bring them out in inclement weather.

    Obviously, my husband has had a much better return for dollars spent on his shoes. Equally obvious is the fact that, while he wanted those shoes, he had to be talked into purchasing them. I, on the other hand, needed minimum discussion before purchasing my $500 beauties…and really, the discussion was more in the way of a courtesy, a nod to the fact that as a couple we should at least make the effort to include each other in large purchases. The outcome was pretty much pre-ordained. I was going to have those Fluevogs.

    I am very happy to say, that those $150 pair of shoes have lent my husband a dash of fashion flair. While I have been, on occasion, one of those women my uncle has described out shopping with their husbands, I can honestly say that as long as Chris builds his outfit around those shoes I had to talk him into purchasing all those years ago, his suits, shirts, and ties will always be acceptable, even modish. And I will never have to refuse to be seen in public with him.

    And that is the crux of this matter. Since my husband, as a stagehand, rarely finds his feet in anything other than steel toed boots, he will always be hesitant about spending his hard earned money on a pair of “frivolous” shoes. That one pair of two toned spectators (black and white naturally, certainly not the dreaded brown) he purchased all those years ago have been the one and only “good” pair of shoes he has ever bought. I’m not really sure what will happen when they finally give up the ghost and have to be replaced. I, on the other hand, know how important a cute pair of boots is to enhancing the perfect outfit, regardless of cost.

    Maybe, when we finally purchase a house, and move out of our small-ish NYC apartment, we can both indulge our shoe fancies. It would be nice to see my husband with an option or two, and I would be pretty happy to augment my Fluevogs by a few dozen more styles.

    Now, if I only knew an architect who could design this shoe friendly abode for me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s