What are you wearing today?

[Chant]

Eh, le Moth, si tu crois qu'avec tes questions socratiques à la mords-moi-l'empeigne, tu vas réussir à nous faire revenir sur BG, tu te fourres le doigt dans l'oeil jusqu'aux tréfonds de ton découvert.

[BSR]

Yes, it would be interesting to discuss that point. Because I still don't clearly figure what are those relevant points of view you're speaking of.

If MA+ must be considered as formal, I assume that color, shape and the worn-out aspect of the material are no more decisive criterias. Which makes CCP derbies, guidi boots and the like formal footwear too.

No, it can't work like that. Otherwise non formal would really only apply to sneakers and sandals. This is far too restrictive.

combat boots are not formal either for example

let's try another move... 'formal' applies to clothes that you wear because of a direct and explicit social constraint (form in this sense means a set of aesthetic choices that embodies a social norm certain individuals placed in a specific situation must follow, for example, the politeness formulas in official letters, or the black shoes when you work for a bank). By wearing formal clothes you prove your knowledge of and obedience to the social rule. this rule has been fixed by a tradition, and when the tradition is not recognized anymore, the rule is forgotten, and the cloth loses its meaning. look at the shoes middle managers are wearing nowadays

So, the problem now is that today, many people have an entire freedom (well, at least explicitly, i don't deny the power of collective unconscious forces) for their wardrobe choices. Technically, there is no more formal clothes for them... but most people that are free to wear anything they like are driven by the power of mimesis and wear what their coworkers, parents, friends are wearing.

And there are still some very general principles. There are clothes that are acceptable in serious occasions (work, family meetings, romantic rendez-vous, decadent nightlife...). They are 'formal'. Shoes that are acceptable in these occasions are like Christian describes them. Aldens are formal because in most cases (fashion business and some creative areas excepted) you go to work with Aldens it's ok, you put RO wedges and it's not ok.

Formal in this sense corresponds to what most people consider is worn because someone must wear it, and not because he/she chooses to wear it.

[Mail-Moth]

Hypothético-inductif :
C'est la semelle - la forme de la semelle + plan en élévation (talon + bas-flancs) - qui est décisive, tout le reste est anecdotique.
Donc, en effet : MA+, Alden, CCP, etc. = formal shoes

First I came to the same conclusion as your proposition ; but then that makes cowboy boots formal.
Well, it is true they can be worn with a tuxedo - Fuuma could easily do that. But the same goes for sneakers. So are sneakers formal ?

Aren't some sneakers at least as formal as MA+ ukranian workboots ? Aren't RO sneakers more formal in a way than Julius cuban-heeled combat boots ?

Doesn't make any sense.

[Mail-Moth]

combat boots are not formal either for example

Are all of them non formal ? I greatly doubt it. I was mentioning Julius ones just above.

let's try another move... 'formal' applies to clothes that you wear because of a direct and explicit social constraint (form in this sense means a set of aesthetic choices that embodies a social norm certain individuals placed in a specific situation must follow, for example, the politeness formulas in official letters, or the black shoes when you work for a bank). By wearing formal clothes you prove your knowledge of and obedience to the social rule. this rule has been fixed by a tradition, and when the tradition is not recognized anymore, the rule is forgotten, and the cloth loses its meaning. look at the shoes middle managers are wearing nowadays

So, the problem now is that today, many people have an entire freedom (well, at least explicitly, i don't deny the power of collective unconscious forces) for their wardrobe choices. Technically, there is no more formal clothes for them... but most people that are free to wear anything they like are driven by the power of mimesis and wear what their coworkers, parents, friends are wearing.

I perfectly agree with that.

And there are still some very general principles. There are clothes that are acceptable in serious occasions (work, family meetings, romantic rendez-vous, decadent nightlife...). They are 'formal'. Shoes that are acceptable in these occasions are like Christian describes them. Aldens are formal because in most cases (fashion business and some creative areas excepted) you go to work with Aldens it's ok, you put RO wedges and it's not ok.

Formal in this sense corresponds to what most people consider is worn because someone must wear it, and not because he/she chooses to wear it.

I don't agree. It depends on too many things.
People here who go to family meetings wearing carpe diems would certainly not consider wearing RO sneakers instead as a major offense to contemporary dressing codes.
MA+ staple boots or worn-out aldens would not be acceptable in an office, and still you consider them formal.
I'm not that keen on decadent nightlife hotspots, but something tells me that sneakers are very welcome there. Isn't there a strong sense of formality at work in nightclubs though ?
And so on.

Sorry people, this is not enough for me. It's very vague.
Conclusion : you can disqualify those aldens in that outfit, and even MA+ - but not because they look too formal.

[Chant]

BSR : absolutely not convinced by your external/sociological definition.
You know me : "formality" has to be definited by specific features of the shoes themselves.

Moth, sorry, forgot to say that boots are a specific case that has to be examinated separately, my definition was just about shoes.
I could say that boots are a kind of hybrid formal/non formal, but I prefer to think that boots, if they're not the classic equitarian boots, can't be considered as formal - unless you wear them with the shaft hidden, which can make them look like - but only look like - formal shoes.

The questions like "isn't this more formal than this" are irrelevant to the topic.
And "my" definition quite works :
sneakers = no heels = non formal
combat boots =/= equiterian boots (+ and rick makes them with no heel now) = non formal
julius combat boots with heel =/= equiterian boots = non formal, even though they have heels.

Putain, les mecs, vous êtes gentils avec vos débats d'intellectuels français, et mes copies de l'Ens ??? Il manquerait plus que Fuuma débarque maintenant...

[Mail-Moth]

Eh, le Moth, si tu crois qu'avec tes questions socratiques à la mords-moi-l'empeigne, tu vas réussir à nous faire revenir sur BG, tu te fourres le doigt dans l'oeil jusqu'aux tréfonds de ton découvert.

Tût-tût, on reste dans le sujet s'il vous plaît

Et puis c'est important, là : les diptères reviennent avec les beaux jours, il est donc grand temps de reprendre l'entraînement.

[Chant]

In addition, I'd say that almost all the designers who design shoes are under the influence of the history of the classical/formal/dressed shoes (derbies, richelieux, etc.), they play with the rules, but they don't invent anything really new in terms of shape. Tiens, dédicace à Fuuma : c'est essentiellement un travail de déterritorialisation.

On the contrary, there's a lot of invention in the design of boots - and sneakers as well.

[Mail-Moth]

The questions like "isn't this more formal than this" are irrelevant to the topic.
And "my" definition quite works :
sneakers = no heels = non formal
combat boots =/= equiterian boots (+ and rick makes them with no heel now) = non formal
julius combat boots with heel =/= equiterian boots = non formal, even though they have heel.

So every low shoe with heels is formal, according to your definition. At a time, though, when equestrian boots certainly were, those that served as models for that painting were not, by any mean :



This kind of shoe was equiped with heels. Even cloggs were then, for anatomical reasons. And they are a direct inspiration source for carpes and consort. I can accept the idea that the interpretation is more precious and refined than the model, but this is not what you are implying when you are reducing formality to a question of shape.

[BSR]

In addition, I'd say that almost all the designers who design shoes are under the influence of the history of the classical/formal/dressed shoes (derbies, richelieux, etc.), they play with the rules, but they don't invent anything really new in terms of shape. Tiens, dédicace à Fuuma : c'est essentiellement un travail de déterritorialisation.

On the contrary, there's a lot of invention in the design of boots - and sneakers as well.

formal or not:



?

[Chant]

@Moth : BSR is right, you're a fucking foucaldien socratian pervert.

The picture of the painting doesn't mean anything. Since when does depicting = reality ? You can't say anything of what the model for the shoes really looked like.
In addition, on the pic you posted, there is no heel that can be seen.

Cloggs have no last. Go back to the first feature.

[Chant]

@BSR : I'd say "formal" with no hesitation.
But the unsual shape of the toe box is a good example of what I sait about playing with the rules (or deterritorialisation).
AND the lack of laces is a another move, that moves the shape away a bit more from formality.
But imagine them covered by the trousers botoom - hiding then the lack of laces -, they're formal.

[Chant]

"Formal" = what has a fixed form - fixed by the tradition (I'd rather say by an aesthetical history), and in this case, the western tradition, who invented the heel to keep our feet out of the mud and make everyone of us tall guys (and allow us thereby to enter the Panthéon).

http://www.allaboutshoes.ca/en/heights_of_fashion/

[Chant]

Bon, comme je suis tout seul à jouer, je retourne à mes copies.
Ce qui, en soi, est une bonne chose.

[Farkhanyassin]

Going to the butchers' for some nice Black Angus sirloin.

[Mail-Moth]

@Moth : BSR is right, you're a fucking foucaldien socratian pervert.

The picture of the painting doesn't mean anything. Since when does depicting = reality ? You can't say anything of what the model for the shoes really looked like.
In addition, on the pic you posted, there is no heel that can be seen.

Haha, I'm not taking that. You can't feign to ignore what peasants croquenots used to look like. Plus, I didn't choose this painting here as an accurate representation - just as a reminder of the shoes in question, since it would have been much longer to find good photographs - if only possible

Cloggs have no last. Go back to the first feature.

1. Cloggs are shaped to fit a foot.
2. Cloggs can vary in shape for ornamental purposes.

We're very close from the definition of a last here. Anyway cloggs are far from being something like the zero level in footwear's history. It was even considered as formal in certain occasions of the rural life.

As for heels, I repeat that they can't be considered as a sufficient proof for formality, since even if their origins are arisztocratic, their further use was far more systematic.



Galoches traditionnelles.



Galoches du pays de Guéret.

Would you consider these formal ?

Fark : I like you a lot more like this.