Sunday, June 25, 2017

The Wild Thing And Hettie.

Is Beauty In The Eye Of The Beholder?
Or...
...Is It Pure Deception?







Well, there seems to be yet another grand oddity coming out of Washington DC.

 It's not the discussion over global warming. It's not the debate over healthcare. It's not about the Russians hacking our election. It's not even about keeping the federal government running for the rest of the year.


Nope! It is instead about


Or,

Who stole the design concept from one shoe company
in order to benefit
the pocketbook of another shoe company?

As is the case with virtually everything in Washington DC over the course of the last six months, this particular shoe issue has itself been surrounded by lawyers hell bent on representing their clients. While presumably the issue of copyright infringement is a relatively cut and dried case easily proven, with the the obsessive inoculation of lawyers into this case, it appears that one party is clearly attempting to deny any form of wrong doing whatsoever.

Not being a lawyer myself should, I suppose, tell me that I have no business getting involved in this particular pair of shoes. However, being an architectural designer and master carpenter which means that I have somewhat of a tendency to be artistically inclined, I can, should and will get involved in the discussion of the shoe design itself.

The one shoe entitled the “Hettie” is apparently a knock off from the other shoe entitled the “Wild One”. As the design of the “Wild One” came before the design of the “Hettie”, the legal issue appears to be in part, the outright theft of the overall original shoe design.

But, again, as I am not an attorney, I will not speak of the legal issue and instead focus this short essay on the overall design of the two pairs of shoes in question as well as what I surmise as being the underlying creative philosophy of the original shoe designer as well as the philosophy of the knock off shoe designer.

For the sake of this essay, I have taken the liberty to rename both of the aforementioned shoe designs.

I have renamed the “Wild One” the “Hooker”.and, I have renamed the “Hettie” the “Whore”.

As such, let me start this essay.






Taking a very close look at the overall architectural presence of the “Hooker” (see above graphic), it is quite clear to this author that the designer of this shoe from the ankle strap to the shin strap to the shape of the heel and the overall grace of movement seen flowing from the heel down the arch and all the way to the toe clearly understood the beauty of the female anatomy that would unduoubtedly grace this shoe once in fact it was placed onto the foot of the woman wearing it. In the same breath, the well manicurred fluffy leather fronds adorning the toe strap and the back sidde of the ankle strap again, clearly convey the graceful and playful whimsy of not only the shoe but the personality of the woman wearing it. All in all, the design of the “Hooker” overwhelmingly celebrates the positive and outgoing human nature of the “Wild One” who designed it and the wild one who would be both proud to purchase it and wear it. In the world of design I live and work in the total success of this shoe suggests nothing more than both personal and professional happiness and success. Thus, the “Hooker” works because it hooks the imagination of the woman wearing the shoe as it does as well hook the imagination of the woman watching the woman who is wearing the shoe. A win for each of the women, the shoe designer, the shoe maker and everyone else who happens to have the pleasure of watching a woman walking in a pair of “Wild One's” on her way out of the bank that holds her money, the money of the other woman, the money of the shoe designer and the money of the shoe maker.


Next of course comes the “Whore”.




As the discerning artistic eye is immediately drawn to a number of engineering disasters, the most robust is in fact the perverse plumpness of the over imposing heel that is virtually identical to the original design of the master designer, but, by default, complacent to the manipulation of artistic integrity not only of the original designer as well as shoe manufacturer, but too as well the “uneducated consumer”, who by defendants knowingly disruptive assumption, would purchase said pair of shoes at a considerably less dollar value than plaintiff's accumulated documentation of overall labor intended for maximum financial return due to such hard earned creative self discipline on the part of plaintiff that has, by deliberate intent, been diminished substantially, by defendant's shallow self ego and equally shallow obsession with ill gotten profit.

Designed apparently by defendant to hold the weight of both Hettie and her Hummer as she forcefully jambs the gas pedal through the floor,boards of that Hummer, such a heel would not be the least bit out of place on another floor of a dirty New Jersey quick automotive lube shop owned undoubtedly by Hettie's fourth husband, defendant simply and knowingly borrowed the design of plaintiff in hopes of capitalizing on the fact that the defendant's consumer base was simply too stupid to realize that craftsmanship at the hands of gifted shoemakers. all of whom require substantial time to produce a shoe of significant elogance are actually entitled to fair economic compensation well beyond the supposed parameters of a defendant with substantial political ties to Washington DC.

As such, and, none the less, the ankle and shin straps, as they appear in the image above, entitled both the “Whore” and “Hettie” appear to have been deliberately and haphazardly tossed onto an old galvanized nail designed to hold greasy air hoses whereas the tow strap and the glob of leather leaning to one side of the toe strap seem to resemble the remnants of a poorly aimed sexual attempt or perhaps simply excess axle grease. Thus, and, from the perspective again of a successful designer and master carpenter, this purposeful and knowingly deceptive visual clutter on the part of defendant is both a blatant attempt at deceiving the original designer, manufacturer and consumer of this high end consumer product, but to equally deceive the low end and highly uneducated individual who dreams of someday being able to purchase not the “Hettie” but the “Wild Child”.


With in essence, the overall presence of the “Whore” being nothing more than a reminder of a series of very bad hours with a wandering New Jersey dock slut, one has to wonder just what kind of lawyers work in Washington DC, and, who in fact works their Hummer - just as one has to wonder about how many of their actual real wives actually own a pair of real and genuine Hooker Shoes?


Thanks for stopping by.


Mike Patrick Dahlke

Curriculum vitae


Please take the time to visit some of my other essays.