Christian Louboutin Fall 2011 Lookbook (NSFW)

Interesting concept, but it felt like I was reading “Where’s Waldo” trying to find the shoes.

Gorgeous! At first glance I thought the first pic was just Whistler’s Mother, but then realized she never had shoes like that! LOVE the last 2 pictures the best. Holding a skull while looking at shoes, and then the last has a look on her face like, ” what are you looking at, this is MY shoe!”  Just love the attitude!

i like the last pair of heels best. but why was the boob necessary. 

That’s actually kind of annoying.

Lush.

I don’t care about the shoes, but the photographs are absolutely gorgeous.

Beyond!

Every aspect of this is perfection.  The styling, models, choice of paintings and pairing of shoes or bags is inspired stuff.  Bravos all around.

It’s weird to me.  There were thousands of other classic paintings into which one could have inserted a shoe or purse for comedic or contrasting effect.  But these fall flat for me. 

- Inserting fine shoeware into sublime portraits of Mayans and Africans only serve to make those shoes seem ridiculous in comparison.

- Putting a sad, wrinkly shoe on top of a glorious still life only makes that shoe look cheap.

- Inserting a shoe or purse into a painting of a woman of high royal stature, arrayed in the greatest finery of her era only points out that the greatest finery of our era is pretty uninteresting.

What a fabulous way to show off accessories. Loved it.

the art history nerd in me is having a pretty attack.

I loved the pictures themselves- mostly because I love that style of painting, but at times I felt like they just stuck the shoe or bag in last minute to make it work. But overall, I think it’s an interesting concept, and there’s no way to NOT look at these images if you saw them. All in all, me likey.

Is it weird that I can’t look at Magdalen with the Smoking Flame without hearing “What’s a fire and why does it, what’s the word, BUUUUUUURN?”

I love the paintings, but even better if the shoes were on their feet.

ok this is just fucking fantastic. thank you for the pretty!

I like it as a concept, but in reality, not so much. The paintings are beautiful, but they have so much texture that sticking a shoe there makes the shoe look like a splat of plastic. And the purse looks cheap. That’s what you get by hanging it on a gal wearing a mile worth of silk

GORGE. I love.

They need John Singer Sargeant’s Madame X actually wearing the shoes. Sex on a stick.

I love these pictures! The shoe kind of blends in with the dress in the last one, but otherwise, this editorial really made me smile.

I am confused as to why anyone would not absolutely be in love with this. 

This campaign is a big OUT! Didn’t like it in general and did not like the portrayal of the black women in particular. Historical significance aside, it is inappropriate for today especially in light of the fact that ALL the other women in the ad were clothed

That was really cool.

Cute and beautifully styled, but really kind of silly.

Most of these designs are hideous, not to mention passe.

Never been a fan, give me my Manolo’s or Jimmy Choo’s any day.

J’adore, j’adore j’adore encore.

GORGEOUS. 

This is the Marquise de Antin http://www.mystudios.com/artgallery/J/Jean-Marc-Nattier/Portrait-of-the-Marquise-d'Antin.html
 
vs Marquise de Pompadour http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2637278250094285158iJjtiX
 
It’s Antin, don’t you agree?
 
And this is Francois Clouet’s Elizabeth of Austira http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois_Clouet_003.jpg

Louboutin’s Emancipated Breast: AFRICA IS A COUNTRY http://t.co/6VaCll5

I should be happy that it’s not only white women who are represented in Louboutin’s spread. But the take on Marie-Guilleme Benoit’s “Portrait d’une Negresse” – where (you guessed it) a seated young, black woman poses for the painter, an exposed breast slipping out of Grecian folds of cloth – is a problematic choice. People like to argue that because this portrait was painted six years after slavery was abolished, and because the painter is a woman, it is an iconic image of emancipation: for black people as well as for women. We’re supposed to see “The Negresse” as an embodiment of steely determination and femininity (one would have to steel oneself, if one was asked to pose in a compromised manner by a white painter, a handful of years after the legal end of slavery). And the fact that the painting was acquired by Louis XVIII ’for France’ in 1818 may tell you something interesting, too.

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t need to expose a boob in order to celebrate my emancipation form forced labour. Looks more like Benoit’s exploring and exploiting a well-known trope: desire and revulsion projected onto the Dark Other.

Black Hamlets and White Othellos are now passé, so Alex Wek could have posed in any of these other ‘looks’. Of all the possible paintings that the artistic director of Louboutin’s Fall Lookbook could have picked, one in which a black model could pose, why pick the one with the liberated breast?

Louboutin’s Emancipated Breast: AFRICA IS A COUNTRY http://t.co/6VaCll5This is the first blog I’ve seen where people are actually discussing the problematic manner in which the sole Black woman in this Lookbook is portrayed. While I should be happy that it’s not only white women who are represented in Louboutin’s spread, the take on Marie-Guilleme Benoit’s “Portrait d’une Negresse” – where (you guessed it) a seated young, black woman poses for the painter, an exposed breast slipping out of Grecian folds of cloth – is a problematic choice. People like to argue that because this portrait was painted six years after slavery was abolished, and because the painter is a woman, it is an iconic image of emancipation: for black people as well as for women. We’re supposed to see “The Negresse” as an embodiment of steely determination and femininity (one would have to steel oneself, if one was asked to pose in a compromised manner by a white painter, a handful of years after the legal end of slavery). And the fact that the painting was acquired by Louis XVIII ’for France’ in 1818 may tell you something interesting, too.I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t need to expose a boob in order to celebrate my emancipation form forced labour. Looks more like Benoit’s exploring and exploiting a well-known trope: desire and revulsion projected onto the Dark Other.Black Hamlets and White Othellos are now passé, so Alex Wek could have posed in any of these other ‘looks’. Of all the possible paintings that the artistic director of Louboutin’s Fall Lookbook could have picked, one in which a black model could pose, why pick the one with the liberated breast?

A feast for the eyes, but the shoes look like torture. I don’t care if the shoes arch my foot so high that it mimics an orgasm gone supernova. Sorry, Mr. Louboutin. I pass.