Christian Louboutin Retrospective

1st May Until 9th July 2012

Christian Louboutin believes that ‘every woman wants to be a showgirl’. Even though this clearly isn’t true of every woman I am sure it is for those ‘birds of paradise’ described seductively by the designer. He recognises how his creations can alter how a woman behaves and feels. The connection of object with flesh is powerful and can be seen in women’s reaction to the brand. It is these women, that swoon admirably around Louboutin, that believe he is a genius that has not only helped them grow a few inches but to also have made them feel that little bit more glamourous: what goes better than a red sole on a red carpet.

I asked singer Stacey Jackson whether she and pal Sophie Conran would be blessing the opening tonight – which is to be more of a premiere than a private view – endorsing a pair. Stacey said that of course, the shoes are a ‘staple for me on stage’ and she will be wearing her black Dafsling Skyscrapers. Sophie, still nursing a foot injury, is hoping to fight the pain and wear her favourite pair. The point is that the shoes are irresistibly seductive and you wouldn’t be seen dead at the king of heels opening not sporting a pair. Quite how a designer can dramatically change how a women wears her own body is hard to describe, it leaves to me ask the question how do you contextualise this and break it down for the public to understand? The exhibition seems to answer this by playing up the magic and fantasy – I guess you can’t simply sweep Louboutin’s branding success under the red carpet.

Tonight is about glamour, the stars and desire. It intends to represent a world that most of us are uninvited to. However those who cannot live the dream for real can be swept away in the fantasy of the exhibition, made possible by customer experience design company, Household. Even the hologram of Dita Von Teese distances the average person from the brand. The only problem is if you are able to afford the shoes the exhibition could look more like a Selfridges’ display. And unfortunately for a curious fashion curator, like myself, the poor lighting and transparent didactic panels made learning something a little bit trickier. Therefore the much-anticipated retrospective came across as a spectacular celebration rather than an exhibition, and the Design Museum executed this well. Visitors gushed ‘isn’t this wonderful’ and ‘ I’m in heaven’ when they entered. I felt I was more on a fairground ride than in a museum, I was experiencing more than interacting.

The Louboutin timeline seemed slightly out of place, I would have liked to have seen the designer’s professional journey in more detail and perhaps narrated by shoes. A short fairytale video piece was tucked away at the back and I am don’t recall one person watching it. It was quirky and light-hearted; I would have preferred this to have been on stage rather than the overpowering burlesque hologram. Then again it is this that everyone will be raving about. It seems that shoes have become the stars of the show and overtaken the designer to become centre stage. This in due course is taken over by whoever is wearing the shoes; the exhibition is a big deal in the fashion circuit. It is no coincidence that every other person at the press preview is a pushy cameraman clambering over you to get the best shot. If I had been wearing stilettos I definitely would have been on the floor.

Louboutin, dressed in signature red, is as charming as his shoes. He speaks passionately about what he does, and I believe him. Growing up alongside three sisters (or witches, he jokes) he learnt about every aspect of what it is to be a woman. His fascination with making them feel beautiful comes from a tender place. However, as interestingly he doesn’t care too much about their comfort, maybe the witches quote can be construed as being slightly more sinister if applied here. Lets therefore ignore it and definitely not mention it when we enter the fetish exhibit. By far the most incredible shoes in the exhibition these beautiful but unwearable objects are devilish in presence, their designs haunting and painful to look at. Their domed glass cases make them untouchable and the fetishist effect is that you still desire them.

The only shoe I am going to single out was the Madison Tag (AW/ 07/08). Louboutin saw graffiti as a revolutionary art form. A graffiti artist called Nicholas, who came from outside Paris, decorated this shoe. Louboutin was intrigued by how someone whose art was associated with power and protest could so beautifully adorn a shoe. The shoe feminised his work. It is Louboutin’s connection with his surroundings and how he translates this into a piece of fashion that resonated with me. He doesn’t reject progression within the design arena but instead embraces it.

Louboutin manages to classily dance with sex appeal and seduction, similar to that of a burlesque performer. He embraces new art forms and styles, working tirelessly to really create an object rather than pump out the same design. The key to his success could be that he believes that every girl wants to be performer and therefore this bleeds into the soul of his brand. And therefore every girl that wears his designs is transformed into a showgirl.

Tory Turk for FAD