Since hitting shelves in early 2016, the Balenciaga Triple S sneakers have become known as the quintessential high-fashion"ugly" sneakers. Their paneled mesh and leather upper—combined with that so-preposterous-it's-dope quadruple-welted sole—made them the seven-layer dip of the sneaker community, and they've been worn by fashion insiders, celebrities, and deep-pocketed folks with advanced taste in footwear. But now Balenciaga has introduced a new Triple S style that reins in the over-the-top vibe—don't worry, just a little bit—leaving a sneaker that's a little more geared to everyday wear.
In place of the mixed-media upper and wild color combos is a thinner nylon upper accented with suede details. Also gone: the highly visible Balenciaga logo, which on the new model is only seen on a small tag. One place something has actually been added to the design is the tongue, where in addition to the seemingly Skechers-inspired Triple S logo there is now the shoe's sizing (formerly stitched onto the toe), as well as a barcode—an inside-out move that harks back to designer Demna Gvasalia's days at Margiela, a brand known for putting its tags and stitches on the exterior of garments. The newly designed Triple S sneakers even come in an all-white iteration that in today's, uh, post–Triple S climate looks downright conservative. And if the not-even-minimalist new versions are a little too minimal for your liking, know that they come with not just one but three pairs of replacement laces in different colors. Even when chilled out, these sneakers will stay wacky.
Not that anyone was wearing Triple S sneakers for their exceptional comfort before, but the new version is in fact lighter than the originals, which each were about as heavy as a newborn child. That's thanks to the newly stripped-down upper, but also thanks to Balenciaga's talked-about recent decision to move production on the shoes from Italy to China. The brand has explained that its new Chinese factories "have a savoir-faire and capacities to produce a lighter shoe." And the truth is, when it comes to luxury goods, the bulk of production costs come from design and marketing budgets, not manufacturing. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide if these sneakers are worth the $880 price tag—and if, even in their oh-so-slightly scaled-back state, you can pull them off.
The Bulls soaring superstar Michael Jordan will rap with rapper Kurtis Blow in May for Poly Gram Records. "I've always wanted to sing," Jordan told us, "and I'm a big fan of rap. But I know if I sound lousy on this record, I'm gonna get razzed about it all next season."
Blow, who wrote the tune, will call it "Air Jordan." He'll will sing the lyrics because Jordan feels they're "too egotistical for him and don't fit his clean image or that make him sound arrogant." For example:
So how do you like me now that I'm rapping
Hard core and zapping?
Like basketball, I'll keep you clapping.
Homeboys and girls
Air is here to rock your world.
Lakers fan Blow originally wanted Magic Johnson: "He didn't give me the same warm reception as Michael did," Blow said. "Magic's spent the past six months listening to a song I wrote for him and he still hasn't made up his mind. Besides, Michael's a lot easier to get a hold of than Magic.
"And his team will probably lose quicker in the playoffs so we can make the record sooner!"
Adidas AG, German manufacturer of athletic shoes and apparel and sporting goods. In the early 21st century it was the largest sportswear manufacturer in Europe and the second-largest (after Nike) in the world. Adidas products are traditionally marked with a three-stripe trademark, which remains an element in the company’s newer “trefoil” and “mountain” logos. Headquarters are in Herzogenaurach, Germany.
The name Adidas (written “adidas” by the company) is an abbreviation of the name of founder Adolf (“Adi”) Dassler. The Dassler family began manufacturing shoes after World War I. At the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the American track-and-field star Jesse Owens wore shoes that were reportedly a gift from Adi Dassler. Owens’s medal-winning performances increased awareness of the Dassler brand around the world. After the disruptions of World War II, Adi and his brother Rudolf (“Rudi”) strove to rebuild the Dassler firm, but a personal breach between the brothers had become irreparable by 1948. The business therefore split in two: Rudi’s company was eventually called Puma, while Adi’s became Adidas.
Adidas grew steadily during the 1950s as association football (soccer) players switched to the company’s shoes, which were light in weight and featured screw-in cleats. The company then developed a line of sporting goods, introducing soccer footballs in 1963. Four years later Adidas began to produce apparel. For many years Adidas was the biggest name in athletic shoes, but competition increased during the 1970s, notably from newer firms such as Nike. Adi Dassler died in 1978, and the company experienced falling market shares during the 1980s, despite an innovative endorsement deal with the rap group Run-D.M.C., creators of the hit song “My Adidas” (1986). (The company was to ally with hip-hop again in a 2016 deal with the rapper and entrepreneurKanye West.)
Between 1990 and 1993 Adidas was owned by the scandal-tainted French business executive Bernard Tapie, who failed to revive it. The company was sold to investors who brought in another Frenchman, Robert Louis-Dreyfus, as chief executive officer and chairman. Under his leadership, Adidas acquired the Salomon Group in 1997. Although best known for winter sports products, Salomon also owned the golf supplier TaylorMade. Adidas was renamed Adidas-Salomon AG and moved into retailing, following the lead of Nike, in 2001. In 2004 the company entered a successful partnership with the clothing designer Stella McCartney.
In 2005 Adidas sold Salomon but held on to the TaylorMade brand. The following year the corporate name was changed back to Adidas AG. In 2006 Adidas acquired a competitor, the Reebok company, owner of the Rockport brand of shoes.
Nike is tackling this fashion industry issue in several ways, which were revealed in the company’s annual sustainability report, which was released earlier this month, and which CEO Mark Parker spoke about in his “Letter from the CEO”, Ecouterre reports.
The main takeaway from the sustainability report is that 71% of Nike footwear and apparel contains recycled materials. Parker explained the key to reducing Nike’s environmental impact is to develop “a new palette of sustainable materials”, and to create a closed-loop model in which production waste and old products can be broken down and re-used for new products.
On the closed-loop front, Nike diverted 92% of its trash from landfill to non-energy recovery incinerators in 2015, and aims to make this 100% by 2020.
The Flyknit is a good case study for the progress Nike is making with regards to waste minimisation and the use of recycled materials. The Nike Flyknit shoe debuted in 2012 and revolutionised waste minimalisation in footwear production by using single fibres, knitted together, instead of multiple, separate, traditional fabrics, which meant it created 80% less waste compared with a typical Nike shoe. From 2016, the yarn which is used to construct the Nike Flyknit will be made from recycled polyester made from post-consumer plastic bottles.
By 2020, Nike is aiming to source 100% of its cotton from certified-organic, recycled, or Better Cotton sources, too. By 2025, it plans to use 100% renewable energy – solar, geothermal, and wind – at company owned facilities. Hannah Jones, Nike’s chief sustainabilty officer said,in a separate statement, reported by Ecouterre, the company sees its sustainability focus as an opportunity: “We’ve set a moon-shot challenge to double our business with half the impact”.
On the human labour front, Parker said: “We have worked alongside others for over 20 years to improve labor standards in contract factories. We’ve learned a lot in that time. And we’ve seen the limitations of the existing system...Compliance to our code of conduct is a foundational requirement, but it can’t end there. We expect any contract factory partner we work with to understand that an empowered and engaged workplace is a productive and profitable business model. The factories that make these investments will be the ones that join the manufacturing revolution.”
In many of the photos of women on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival, the elegant gowns fall all the way to the ground, obscuring a view of their special-occasion footwear.
So why on earth would it matter if women entering the prestigious celebration of cinema chose not to confine themselves in difficult-to-walk-in heels, opting for something more manageable — or even fashion-forward, in a flat?
It did seem to matter to someone, though. It was reported last week that some women were turned away from the festival for the sartorial sin of wearing flats. High heels, it turns out, appeared to be part of the unwritten red-carpet dress code. Wearing heels changes how you stand, how you walk and how you are perceived. Even if they are visible only in small flashes, when a hem moves to one side, they are, in essence, a foundation garment: shoes that keep women in their place.
The heel has come to be the icon of feminine allure and even female power. But what, exactly, is this power and why do only women have the privilege of using heels to convey it?
Heeled footwear that gave the wearer a bit of a lift, or an advantage while on horseback, were not the original domain of women. They were first introduced into Western fashion around the turn of the 17th century from Western Asia. Privileged men, followed by women, eagerly wore them for more than 130 years as expressions of power and prestige.
This changed, however, in the 18th century when the distinctions between male and female dress began to reflect larger cultural shifts. Regardless of class, men were deemed uniquely endowed with rational thought and thus worthy of political enfranchisement. Heels were not required on this new equal playing field. Men began to wear the nascent three-piece suit in somber hues and were discouraged from standing out from one another. Alexander Pope, writing early in the century, composed a satirical list of men’s club rules that included the warning that if a member “shall wear the Heels of his shoes exceeding one inch and half... the Criminal shall instantly be expell’d... Go from among us, and be tall if you can!”
Women, in contrast, were represented as being naturally deficient in reason and unfit for either education or citizenship. Fashion was redefined as frivolous and feminine, and the high heel became a potent accessory of ditsy desirability. The “lively” character Harriot “tottering on her French heels and with her head as unsteady as her feet” in a 1781 story “The Delineator,” represented the typical 18th-century feminine ideal. The high heel was then suspect for other reasons, too; it had supposed connections to female vanity and deceitfulness. Added to this was the increasing fear that women would use heels and other sexualized modes of dress to seduce men and usurp power. Marie Antoinette was the poster child for this, and this idea is the cornerstone of the contemporary conceit that high heels are accessories of female power.
By the 19th century, the invention of photography, and its immediate adoption by pornographers, established the curious convention of depicting women stripped of their clothing with the exception of their shoes.
The heel also retained its associations with female irrationality. As one anti-suffrage agitator wrote in The New York Times in 1871, “Suffrage! Right to hold office! Show us first the woman who has ... sense and taste enough to dress attractively and yet to walk down Fifth-avenue wearing ... a shoe which does not destroy both her comfort and her gait.”
