Critique Of Cinderella High-Heel Church

A contemporary work of design I chose which I believe is bad for society is the "Cinderella High-Heel Church" in Taiwan. The structure was ‘commissioned by local tourism authorities’ (Tablang, Forbes, 2016) and completed its development in 2016. I sourced the image from a Forbes article based on the structure. The function of this building was to conduct ‘pre-wedding photo shoots and wedding ceremonies’ and act as a ‘blissful, romantic avenue’ (Chen & Tsoi, BBC, 2016). The Church is made of ‘320 tinted glass panels’, about 10m wide and cost about US$686,000 to build. (Wagner, NPR, 2016) Despite its shimmering features, there are a few unpleasant reasons that aid me to condemn it as bad design. Firstly, the creators’ intention behind the structure seems to cause more of a negative impact than a positive one. The purpose of this building was to ‘attract female worshippers and tourists to the site’ (Wagner, NPR, 2016).

The church is meant to ‘cater to women's apparently delicate inclinations’ through its ‘100 female-oriented features — maple leaves, chairs for lovers, biscuits and cakes. ’ It was built in memory of a girl whose legs had to be amputated because of the Blackfoot disease. ‘This led to the cancellation of her wedding and she remained unmarried and spent the rest of her life at a church. ’ (Wagner, NPR, 2016). Despite the creators attempt to appeal to females through the tragic heart-warming story and shimmering glass panels, their intention to attract women through a gigantic shoe is in fact, quite gender stereotypical. The intention to cater to women through a massive Cinderella shoe may have attracted women 50 years ago but Taiwan seems to be quite regressive in their gender ideologies in 2016 through this design. It is therefore no surprise that women have found the ‘concept just a little bit patronising’ (Marieclaire website, 2016). The main reason why I find this building bad design is because it is presented as a ‘church’ but is not ‘used for regular services, but for pre-wedding photo shoots and wedding ceremonies’ (Chen & Tsoi, BBC, 2016). The creators intend to attract ‘female worshippers’ (Wagner, NPR, 2016) but fail to present any form of worship for them. It is simply manipulative to attract believers to a ‘church’ where they do not receive any services that are usually provided in a church. So we ask ourselves as one critic questions in a ‘Taiwanese online forum PTT, "Besides copying, what kind of standard does this church have?"’ (Chen & Tsoi, BBC, 2016).

The building fails to perform its natural task, which is to act as a church, but also through the creators’ aim: ‘solely intended to be used as a fantastical backdrop for wedding-related photo shoots’ (Tablang, Forbes, 2016). If it were to be used solely as a backdrop, then why create a building for it and not a two dimensional structure that is usually used for backdrops? This question was raised as I analysed the building based on William Morris’ ideologies on design, where he believed that ‘art is in the detail of everyday life, in the design of household goods, conservation of the countryside, thoughtful planning of towns, proper upkeep of roads’ and is not just a ‘matter of pictures on the wall, not merely a plutocratic hobby’ (MacCarthy, 2014). According to Morris, design is supposed to be beneficial for the society and not just act as a pretty item which seems to be this building’s primary purpose.