However, this is advertising, not moviemaking, and sex sells…even to women. Eva, I think you’re onto something, but your copy seems rather wordy to me. May I suggest:

Sometimes it’s not just a shoe. It is art. It is sex. Christian Louboutin at Net-A-Porter

@cheeky:
True, but I like doing it not for whether it is la mode or not, but just because. I’ll have to think up soemthing more clever next time.

@Krista:
Well I’m not talking specifically about the shoe which is why I said This. Is. Sex. It is the experience that wearing shoes like this deliver. They are gorgeous. They are beautiful. You feel great as a result. Or maybe I am overthinking it and we should just forget the whole affair.

@stylespy:
Agreed

But there’s an idea in cinema that the image should do the work — that you shouldn’t have people on screen (or title cards in the old days) telling people what to think about the image.

So even though the shoes *are* sex (again, shoe fetish here), I’m not crazy about the idea of telling people that, or more generally, about telling people how to respond to an image. If you need a character to explain something about what you’re seeing, the image isn’t right.

(I think that’s one of the main differences between a 3 camera TV shoot and a real movie — those explanations are often necessary with the TV shoot, because the method doesn’t allow for the same crafting of the images.)

If that’s necessary — and it might be necessary with this image — it’s a sign that the image needs to be beefed up a little. At least that’s the typical thing people might say in a cinematic context.

So instead of saying “this. is. sex.” I’d get a stronger image — probably one with an actual woman in it, and some fantastically glamorous world, along with the shoes (people tend to make things sexier) — and let the picture scream that out without an interpreter or mediation.

And if I had any text at all, I’d probably try to use it to blunt the visceral sexuality of the photo — to create a kind of comfort zone, because sometimes sexual power makes people uneasy.

I’m having trouble coming up with a line on the spot here. But it would be trying to convey sophistication, or something that acknowledges the aesthetic quality of the shoes.

This isn’t right, or even close to right, but it’s the best I can do now — something like maybe, “The devil is in the details”. And that comes to my mind mostly because of the post you made about the faux-Louboutins awhile back. Because there are very subtle things about these shoes that are wonderful, and very difficult to explain. But the phrase is too cliched — to corny for me to say it’s right.

And I don’t know anything about copy writing — whether or not they give you a photo, and say write a caption. But it seems more organic to me to think of the photo and the caption as part of a larger whole, and to not think about it in a way that holds one piece fixed (ie., the photo) and then tries to find a phrase to match.

I love your blog, and am sorry to post such a long winded reply, especially as I know nothing about the things I’m talking about. And I’m sorry if saying I have a shoe fetish is creepy. I didn’t mean it that way.