It's worth considering too that a bespoke maker doesn't just fit the foot, he fits the customer's "head," as well.
Whether the last be scanned / CAD/CAM or hand carved from a chunk of hornbeam, without the input and adjustments of the shoemaker, you could probably get as good a fit if you wrapped your foot in papier-mâché.
Which, when I think about it, makes me rethink my notions about what this discussion is all about--that and the repeatedly determined attempts to change the subject and / or ignore dismiss all the logic and facts.
It's not about lasts or inseaming techniques at all.
It's about standards of quality--across the board.
It's about "quality" being increasingly equated, in the popular imagination, with expedience, with immediate gratification, price, and with superficialites such as high shines, antiquing, colour, and all that glitters. And perhaps, most importantly, popularity.
Not with excellence...in any regard. Not with substance or skill or finesse or best practices. Or mindful, deliberate, human-centric aspirations.
And when you reduce the definition / concept of "quality" to the mundane, to the "good enough," to the pedestrian, proletarian or utilitarian, what are you left with...really?
I guess I'm proud of my fetishes. It's good to have a few fetishes--it marks you as something other than a rubber-stamped sterile clone of dernier cri vapidity.
I proudly admit to a fetish for excellence. For nuance, refinement, aspiration. For whatever is the antithesis of indifference, insouciance, insipidness, and acceptance.
Yes, I aspire. I think that's what lies at the core of being human--to dream, to aspire, to seek, to learn, and to strive for better.
It seems clear, to me at any rate, that for many people, these are not critical concerns. Oh well--"You can't make a silk purse...."
Edited by DWFII - 1/26/14 at 11:10am