When it comes to men’s trainers this occasion, it seems the more hideous, the more hip

Balenciaga’s Triple S trainers.

Heinously haute

Do your trainers contain fat, lolling tongues and thick, orthopaedic soles? Are they scuffed, yellowing and oversized to the aspect of comedy? Do they look like shoes you would attend to by the back door and slip on to take out the bins? If so, congratulations! You’ve nailed this occasion’s biggest trend.

In designer fashion, such “ugly” trainers retail for anywhere up to £780. And this is profuse than a niche trend. Thanks to the sellout hype round Balenciaga’s Triple S trainers, as well as versions by Louis Vuitton, Prada and Gucci, they oblige become the defining footwear of now. Their influence is all over the boisterous street, where a bulbous aesthetic is creeping on to the shelves.

The theory behind nauseating chic is that you have to get it to get it. It’s very Prada. (“Plain is attractive, ugly is exciting. The investigation of ugliness is, to me, more gripping than the bourgeois idea of beauty,” said Miuccia Prada in 2013.) It’s also same Dada. In his 1918 Dada Manifesto, Tristan Tzara tell ofed beauty as “a boring sort of perfection, a stagnant idea of a tow-haired swamp”. Burn. The ironic, internet-era take on such anti-beauty viewpoints expresses itself in wilfully knackered and weird-looking trainers. It’s all first-class conceptual.

Sneak freak

To impress the trainer nerds, your next brace should be a collaboration between as many parties as possible, for lesson Off-White (pictured) x Nike x MoMA. There should be months of pre-release oozes and a launch event with a 12-hour queue. Otherwise, it’s all too relaxed.

Ethical trainers

Eco is the buzziest buzzword in fashion right now. If you desire to feel better about all those long-haul flights, these sustainable (Veja) and glue-free (Stella McCartney, imaged) trainers will work a treat.

Defiantly minimal

Fawning Scandi chic may no longer be the cutting edge of fashion, but there is nevertheless something very pleasing about a simple, go-with-anything trainer, such as these by Axel Arigato. In earliest condition, they may suggest you’re the sort of person who does not brook puddles, or dust, or parties, or love, or laughter. But that is doubtless preferable to being the sort of person who buys pre-distressed trainers.

Dad trainers

Not as ungainly as “disagreeable” trainers, but bulkier than your usual Chuck Taylor All Names, these are the gateway shoes that may convince you to try something retro and adorkable. Some explain the likes of these by Camper using the slightly patronising as regards “Dad trainers”, which suggests that (like dads?) they are, cooked through, ever so slightly naff.

Keeping it classic

You have played out the last five years in Adidas Stan Smiths and are on tap for something different. You think ugly trainers are ridiculous. You don’t necessitate to attract undue attention to the area below your ankles. These Reeboks are the trainers for you.

Commenting on this essay? If you would like your comment to be considered for inclusion on Weekend journal’s letters page in print, please email [email protected], subsuming your name and address (not for publication).