Elephant Dung Heels Revisited

Apparently somebody has worn INSA's elephant dung heels and apparently they felt the need to wear little else. Art does after all speak for itself - or in this case recycling or maybe animal rights...
When you see this photograph what are you thinking about? The shoes or the woman wearing the shoes? The woman who has no apparent identity and no means of identification other than the fact that she is willingly wearing art on her feet.

Did you know that in woman's studies to fetishize any part of the body (e.g. the feet) without having some way of connecting those feet to the woman they belong to is an act of violence against that woman, a means of demeaning her and her right to be seen as a whole person.
So is that what INSA is doing in his artwork? By only defining women by the shoes they are wearing and, in his work, their predominantly bare legs is he stripping them of importance and using them only to his advantage, only to utilize his needs?
It's true that often shoe catalogs only use the bottom half, or quarter, of their models to showcase the item they are trying to sell, but when does it go from advertising to disrespect?
When do we stop noticing the person inside the stilettos, holding them up, giving them some kind of life so that they will be purchased, so they will be noticed?
And if in the advertisements we notice only the shoe, how long will it be before we refuse to acknowledge the women wearing them even if we meet her on the street, even if we can look her in the eye? Even if you are the women who eventually wears those shoes?
What do you think? Are you willing to lose your identity for art, for the sake of being somebody's muse...
ANM