Give me grotesque designs for children over white sports welfare shoes any day
Again with the price... nothing to do with looks.
The purpose of any "fashion" is to signal your status to others. $400 sneakers signal you have money the only way they can, by being as "eye-catching" (i.e. eye-abusive) as possible. The reason this doesn't work with sneakers is that sneakers are
inherently a cheap product that were intended for playing sports and consequently being damaged and worn out fast. They are primarily sold to children, so they have very colorful and silly designs. As you have clearly demonstrated by posting these abominations, the only way to "stand out" in the sneaker world is to crank up the colors, lines, etc. even more, thereby becoming even more ridiculous looking.
Contrast this with "dress shoes" where more expensive models signal the intended message through superior materials, craftsmanship, and increasingly subtle design.
just compare this shitty $150 calvin klein dress shoe
with this $1000 aubercy
Notice that one doesn't have to plumb the depths of retarded gimmickry to convey "superior fashion" in this case?