What are you wearing today?

[Chant]

Who's the fucker who dares to interrupt our discussion by posting a pic ?
Oh, it's you Fark.
I quite like it.

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.

This is BSR's definition of formality.
In addition, the shoes we are speaking about have nothing to do with any events of "rural life".
Again, cloggs are out of subject : none of the designers we're interested in designs any. (waiting for a pic to pop up)
You maybe want me to say that shoes have to be made of another fabric than wood to be formal ? Maybe.

The example of the galoches de guéret is interesting since I said that formal = fixed form. And this form can vary, but inside of a certain frame (celle du territoire, et de sa déterritorialisation). I never said that heels were enough, I said last form + sides + elevation. Les galoches de guéret are the frame.

Mail-Moth's reply : "Please define more precisely the idea of frame".

[Faust]

Wow, waking up and serious intellectual discussion going on in WAYWT (the armpit of SZ), out of all threads! Nice!

Moth - DO NOT LISTEN TO BSR. If you buy sneakers I will personally come to Paris and deal with you (and with him, too). Maintain some dignity, dammit!

As formal/informal wear - BSR, you put it well, even though I don't want to agree with you. I still cringe when I see these stupid indie bands in suits and hipsters in bow ties. They look pathetic to me. Even though they are clearly trying to break the rules of convention in their pansy way, suits are still suits and bow ties are still bow ties. I don't think it's all in the psychology of the wearer, but there are certain elements in the garments themselves that make them formal/informal (waiting for laika to come in and tell me that all of this is made up by society anyway and shatter my little world).

[Chant]

Anyway, we made a mistake. The Master is right.
The problem is not the formality or not of the shoes.
It's their shape : they're lacking of roundness to fit both the volume of the pants and the quite relaxed fit (toutes proportions gardées puisque c'est une tenue du Moth).
These boots would fit perfectly, and give in addition a slight nice rural life formal event touch, since they're obviously informed by the cloggs' shape.

[Chant]

(waiting for laika to come in and tell me that all of this is made up by society anyway and shatter my little world).

No, formality has to be defined by intrinsic characteristics too. The extrinsic ones , like BSR tried - for his shame - are not enough. Or only half of the job would be done.

[Mail-Moth]

Christian, I just have to look at BSR's pic to understand that even if the designers we're following here are not designing cloggs, some of them seem to know a bit about them. This design didn't obviously come from a mere meditation about the suppression of laces and the choice of a rounder toebox.

If you see wood parts as incompatible with formal footwear, would you go as far as saying that a lace-up shoe with heel and entirely made of leather is certainly formal ?

The example of the galoches de guéret is interesting since I said that formal = fixed form. And this form can vary, but inside of a certain frame (celle du territoire, et de sa déterritorialisation). I never said that heels were enough, I said last form + sides + elevation. Les galoches de guéret are the frame.

Please define more precisely the idea of frame.
Please define more precisely the formal form.
Please define more precisely the notion of formal sides.

[Mail-Moth]

Anyway, we made a mistake. The Master is right.
The problem is not the formality or not of the shoes.
It's their shape : they're lacking of roundness to fit both the volume of the pants and the quite relaxed fit (toutes proportions gardées puisque c'est une tenue du Moth).
The shoes BSR posted in between would fit perfectly and give in addition a slight nice rural life formal event touch.

Ah, agreed - at last. But my MA+ would be as good IMO. Rounded shape.
Y a des coups de sabot au cul qui se perdent tout de même, vinguié.

[Chant]

Can you please define the Renaissance frame of depicting the human body ?
No need.

No need neither for the derby shape, since it's a matter of proportions between lenght and height that everybody who has some knowledge in the history of shoes (and even without, since all the industry follows the same rules) knows instinctively. The ratio could be defined mathematically (we need some diagram poster), but it would be useless.

The interesting question would be : when did this shape first appear, how long did it take to be settled down, and how long did it take to become the universal western standard.

[Chant]

Ah, agreed - at last. But my MA+ would be as good IMO. Rounded shape.
Y a des coups de sabot au cul qui se perdent tout de même, vinguié.

J'ai eu une illumination : il te faut une paire de designer cloggs.

Et que penses-tu de renommer SZ en disons... BG ?

[Mail-Moth]

I don't see that shoe you're talking about. Or is it something like every-low-shoe-in-leather-with-heels-and-not-too-bulky ? This is simply an overextension of the traditional category of formal footwear then - from oxfords to derbies, which aren't, historically, formal. Quite the contrary in fact.

So your definition just leaves aside rangers, sneakers and tongs - and cloggs

Isn't this a bit too generic ?

But I begin (at last) to see what you mean. Simply I don't think that formal is the term we should use here, since you're now giving it a sense very different from the one it takes usually when discussing footwear - the sense the word had at the beginning of the discussion, BTW, at least for two out of us three.

For you formal shoe, as I understand it now, means : "which enters the frame of the shoe as a category, distinct from the clogg, etc". For BSR, me and the rest of the people interested in the question, it is rather usually : "adapted to occasions when the respect of a certain protocole is needed." There can't be any connections between both, since lots of formal shoes according to your definition do not abide by the rules of social formality - whatever they are depending of the time and place.

However, if I'm sticking to your definition, in the beginning of this conversation you were in fact just advising me not to wear lace-ups with those pants.

Allright, I can get that.




What the heck ! Can't you be a little more simple sometimes ?!

[Chant]

However, if I'm sticking to your definition, in the beginning of this conversation you were in fact telling me not to wear lace-ups with those pants.

Not at all. Laces are another question.
Allez, on repart pour un tour.

[Chant]

Putain, c'est pourtant simple :

Chaussures formelles = chaussures qui ont une forme de chaussures.

[Mail-Moth]

Ok, enough for me today.
BSR, your turn.

W2K designer's kloggs, BTW ?

[Faust]

No, formality has to be defined by intrinsic characteristics too. The extrinsic ones , like BSR tried - for his shame - are not enough. Or only half of the job would be done.

glad to hear that

[JetLag]

3 pages... The french art of conversation ^^
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/31105260@N07/4671323631/" title="11447DoisneauWine de morinierea, sur Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4671323631_2f839c5277.jpg" width="496" height="413" alt="11447DoisneauWine" /></a>

[Mail-Moth]

Some people rather see it that way :