Laura Gonzalez

blog

1 Jul 2007

These shoes are made for walking

iPadI am not sure. I am definitely not sure and the more I think about it, the less sure I am about this iPod inspired iPad building (not convinced about the pun, either). Of course, iPods are a way of life, identity-bearing devices and saving graces when I am stopped by charity touts in Glasgow‚Äôs Buchanan Street. Still, I am not sure they would make good dwellings or offices; I doubt people would want to live in them. Besides, where is the iClick wheel? And the screen? And I know it is only inspired on the iPod design but, as it currently stands, it could also be a swanky cigarette packet, a gigantic tic-tac box…

You know I love shoes. You know I would [almost] do anything for a pair of Manolos, but I think boundaries are important when it comes to architectural design. I mean, iPod in hand, shoes in feet, and architecture all around. Lets not mix them.

With many thanks to Mike Press for making me think about the limits of my love for shoes.

Posted in Blog, iPod


3 Responses to “These shoes are made for walking”

  1. Mike Press said:

    “….but I think boundaries are important when it comes to architectural design. I mean, iPod in hand, shoes in feet, and architecture all around. Lets not mix them.”

    Why not? I mean, I think that I agree with you, and looking at the iPad building it’s a pretty overwhelming case for having the architect taken out and shot. But are boundaries relevant in design? Architecture gets reduced down to perfume bottles (think of the architects who have worked on perfume bottles) and to tableware (eg Alessi). I suppose it’s only fair that it works the other way too. Hope the PhD and your summer’s going well 🙂

  2. Mike Press said:

    “…but I think boundaries are important when it comes to architectural design. I mean, iPod in hand, shoes in feet, and architecture all around. Lets not mix them.”

    Why not? Well actually I think I’m with you on this, given that there is a fair case for the architect of iPad to be taken out and shot. But you raise an interesting question about boundaries in design, and their permeability. But here’s a building you’ll love:
    http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/CABAKshoe.html
    …. which may, or may not, owe something to this design from 1933:
    http://patentroom.com/shoe-building

    How about demolishing GSA’s frankly tired old buildings and replacing them with a collection of giant shoes?

  3. Laura Gonzalez said:

    Yes, I certainly think there should be some boundaries between art, design and architecture. But maybe not prescriptive, predictable ones… Inspiration is great, ideas, especially of the 1933 drawing kind are wonderful testimony of a creative mind… On the other hand literal or semi-literal translations are problematic, I think, if not thoroughly thought through. I think the iPad building and one you linked to (the horror!) are perfect examples.

    I still think shoes are made for walking -at least for the time being- and that is a good thing. I vividly remember my sense of wonderment when I stepped in the shadow of my first Alvaro Siza building. Nothing like it. I wish he could do something with those GSA buildings you mention. Especially, *ahem*, the School of Architecture. But not the Mackintosh, though! There is so much sense of humor there…

Leave a Reply

About Me

I am an artist and writer. My recent practice performance, film, dance, photography and text, and my work has been performed, exhibited and published in many venues in Europe and the US. I have spoken at numerous conferences and events, including the Museum for the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, the Medical Museum in Copenhagen, College Arts Association and the Association for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society. When I am not following Freud, Lacan and Marx’s footsteps with my camera or creating performance works as part of my Athenaeum Research Fellowship at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, I teach postgraduate students at Transart Institute.

I am currently immersed in an interdisciplinary project exploring knowledge and the body of the hysteric. In 2013, together with Child and Adolescent Mental Health practitioner Frances Davies, I co-edited the book ‘Madness, Women and the Power of Art’, to which I contributed a work authored with Eleanor Bowen. My book ‘Make Me Yours: How Art Seduces’ was published by Cambridge Scholars in 2016. In this text, investigates psychoanalytic approaches to making and understanding objects of seduction, including an examination of parallels between artistic and analytic practices, a study of Manolo Blahnik’s shoes as objects of desire, a disturbing encounter with Marcel Duchamp’s last work, and the creation of a psychoanalytically inspired Discourse of the Artefact, a framework enabling the circulation of questions and answers through a relational approach to artworks.