Here is the result in plain text:
“New Balance’s mutant 1906L is clearly in the latter category. Introduced last year, New Balance’s shoe is a mash-up of a sneaker and a loafer, christened the “Snoafer” by the internet. It’s a mutt-like design caught in the liminal space between informal and formal.
Whatever else the Snoafer may be, it has been polarizing. Versions of the shoes keep selling out (though how many have been produced is unclear), yet detractors say that the Snoafer is just plain ugly.
In an edited conversation, Jon Caramanica, Stella Bugbee and Jacob Gallagher, three members of The New York Times staff (two of whom actually purchased the Snoafers) discuss the shoe’s Frankensteinian merits, how it has been received by their respective family members and if it’s actually ugly enough.
…
The reaction I got when I posted pictures of the 1906Ls on Instagram was overwhelmingly negative, which only made me think that they were cooler. If everybody hates a thing, it must be doing something right?
But to go back to your earlier point, Stella. Do you think people thought they were perverse or merely ugly? Are people reacting to this shoe because it’s new or because they find it unappealing? That’s an important distinction.
…
I’m with Jon here. They’re not ugly. They’re definitely not in the category of Jon’s beloved Balenciaga Triple S, a sneaker that knowingly bonked itself on every branch of the ugly tree.
…
The “N” might be the riskiest thing on the shoe! Who puts a logo there? That to me is part of the appeal. They’re giving something new to a hype consumer (after all, they keep selling out) while knowingly dipping into geriatric territory.
…
Maybe the 1906L will just need two decades to be normalized and appreciated.
Source link
