[acomms]

He's saying that heels and basketball shoes are great because they do not adhere to minimalism. If they strictly adhered to just doing their job they would be less decorative than they are. We want these objects to also be expressive, and so we design them to be so. He's suggesting this expression is good, and shouldn't be constrained by an adherence to minimalistic design.

[thrav]

I hear you, but my point is the broad definition of shoe = “thing that protects your feet” shouldn’t be applied to either, anymore than “thing used to drive other things into things” should be applied equally to hammers, sledgehammers, mallets, and fence post drivers.

Yeah, they all do that, but they all do it in different ways and for different reasons and are adorned to match the specific outcomes they’re after, not just as superfluous ornamentation.

Look closer at the high-tops he shows (https://cdn.flightclub.com/TEMPLATE/152035/1.jpg). They are reinforced around the ankle, heels, and toes, because that’s where they are most stressed by a basketball player. They have vents, so the players feet don’t get too hot. Those are necessary design elements. The only thing that could be simplified, and still do the job as well, is the color scheme and Nike logo.

That’s why they’re timeless, which is exactly what Rams was saying. If you shift the category from shoe to running shoe, or ballet shoe, the essential elements shift, and the ideal design shifts with them.