Tom Ford F/W 2015.16 Los Angeles

[Deleted member 1957]

looks like someone watched lots of dallas and dynasty reruns! its one of those things tht grow on you

 

[Inlimbo]

lol to me looks like something Mary J. Blige would have worn in the family affair video

 

[dior_couture1245]

Nobody is going to make Tom Ford into anyone else and shame on anyone who would be so foolish as to try or want to. Frankly it's refreshing to see a designer stick to their guns when so many of the people around him are compromising their individuality for the sake of fitting in.

Thank you.

It's so ridiculous to continue to read the same comments over and over again in every Tom Ford thread about him being "tacky," "tasteless," etc. etc. Literally the last thing we need is another designer wrapped up in the Celine-Machine. One more designer playing that game and I think I could go postal.

Thank GOD Tom still does as he pleases. There are so few designers today who are true to themselves, their taste, opinions, visions, ideas, etc. Practically every other designer is indistinguishable from one another at this point in a desperate effort to fit in, make money and bank on current trends. But who will last in that game? Only the originator wins. The followers build faulty, shaky foundations based on imitations and when the originator of the trend moves on, the phonies are left with no identity they can call their own.

Who could accuse Tom of being a follower?

And I also don't think I can stand to hear another comment in a Tom Ford thread here about the distaste for the sexuality he infuses into his clothes and his vision of women. It is so narrow-minded, naive and pretentious to blatantly ignore human being's instinctual appetite for sex and that subscribing to Tom's version of sexuality on display is somehow degrading - as if he is forcing any woman to be a sexual object. Last I checked, when a woman buys into Tom Ford (or when she bought into Ford's Gucci/YSL), she is making the conscious choice of wanting to present herself that way. She could easily wander across Madison Ave to the Celine store and cloak herself in a shapeless wool car coat and oversized turtleneck sweater, but some people choose to show their sexuality off in a more "obvious" way, and to assume that the desire to do so somehow means that person is lacking in brains or self-awareness is so incredibly insulting.

I'm sorry I wouldn't want to swath myself in Proenza's wool felt monstrosities. I would much rather (if I were a woman) wear Tom Ford all day every day, thank you very much.

But ultimately - it's OK for fashion to have both - and that's what's always frustrating about Tom's threads is that you'd almost think we were living in Amish country by the way people judge his collections, his taste and opinions and ethos. It's like an inquisition around here for anyone who doesn't make art gallery clothes. Maybe we really are living in the dark ages, again. Are people really that afraid of sex? Are we a completely neutered society?

 

[Vitamine W]

^ PREACH!
well spoken.

 

[Uemarasan]

Since the opinion above seems to be directed at the comments I've made about Ford past and present, I believe I have the right to reply. I only wonder why much of the criticism is directed toward the thinking behind my posts (pretentious, naive, narrow-minded) instead of being spent properly defending the collection in question. Not once have I attacked any opinion in this thread. Instead, I have chosen to look at the clothes.

To clarify: I have nothing against sex and consumer choices. I appreciate the spectrum of aesthetics that fashion allows for, and as I've said Ford is perfectly within his rights to offer a vision of his own making. However, I don't believe anything is above criticism, and just because Ford can do whatever he wants, it doesn't mean I have to subscribe to whatever it is he is selling. So, no, I have nothing against sex. I simply have something against Ford's idea of sex, which I find reductive, obsolete, and pandering to an outmoded view of female sexuality. Let's be honest: we haven't reached that point in history wherein the idea of women dressing in a sexual manner is completely divorced from attracting the sexual and objectifying gaze of the men who have set these parameters of what is considered sexually appealing in the first place. This is what I see in Ford's clothes, and I do not find that rationale in fashion the least bit empowering. So, yes, women have the right to dress however they see fit, and that in itself is empowering, but what is the idea behind these clothes? Why do they have to exist in the first place? I find it more fruitful when fashion questions the notions of beauty and sex instead of simply acquiescing to old ideas. One doesn't need to be an "intellectual" to do this but simply have a great awareness of how things are in the world. Jean Paul Gaultier (especially in his older collections), in my opinion, has a more thoughtful and radical vision of female sexuality than Ford, for instance.

Many designers stay true to themselves. It's just that their threads are not looked at in this forum, or they do not even have threads to begin with.

 

[gazebo]

https://www.youtube.com/user/runwaydonemyway

 

[softgrey]

^^right there and you don't really need to comment further......
pure trash...

i like the beginning of the show a LOT...
and agree on the very TEXAS tacky observations regarding the denim and patchwork...
i feel more of his YSL years in the black ruffled looks...
which I think is fine- as long as it's under his own name and not YSL's...

as far as this comment goes...

and that's what's always frustrating about Tom's threads is that you'd almost think we were living in Amish country by the way people judge his collections, his taste and opinions and ethos. It's like an inquisition around here for anyone who doesn't make art gallery clothes.

those "art gallery clothes" generally get waaay less attention around here, imo...
i mean...
it's usually just me and about 5 other posters who even comment on CDG, Yohji, Junya etc...
so, I think it's hard to really say that...
and i run around talking about all the sex in those collections...
...

you don't have to wear a skin tight dress to like sex...
in fact...
it's harder to be sexy with those clothes on...you can't move!
(have you ever tried to even walk in a hobble skirt?- they don't call it a hobble skirt for nothing)...
pretty much the only thing you can really do in some of these sorts of clothes is stand there and look pretty...
which makes you a sex OBJECT rather than an active participant...
and i do generally object to that...

that's why i like the ruffled dresses...they are tight in good spots and flow-y where they need to be...
with a gorgeous decollete...those are real clothes that could be worn by most anyone...

a LOT of women don't feel comfortable in clothes that show every curve or are in any way restrictive...you just feel uncomfortable...both physically and psychologically...
beaded dresses are hard to sit in, for example...
those beads just dig into your a** the whole time...
there are so many practical reasons why these are not every day clothes...
but who cares...
they aren't meant to be...

those ladies who live in the suburbs in texas will love the denim and fur...
i'd bank on that...

my friend from HS now lives in a HUGE house in the suburbs of NJ and she tried on a denim fur lined jacket with me one day in a shop...
i watched with horror as she took it off the rack...
but as soon as she got it on, WHAMMO!...
it made perfect sense for her and her lifestyle ...
of course you couldn't pay me to wear it, but it's great for her...

i mean- she'd look pretty strange running around her neighborhood in cdg...
so- it's all good...

it's not about the runway, in the end...
it's about the real way...

*of course, if you are a celebrity, then all bets are off, because in that case, you are buying a COSTUME to wear on the public stage...
and as costume, this stuff is fun...

fyi- i don't care for any of the designers spike mentioned either...
i don't get the appeal there at all...

 

[VersaceVixen009]

lol to me looks like something Mary J. Blige would have worn in the family affair video

I literally lol'd

 

[Spike413]

^^right there and you don't really need to comment further......
pure trash...

i like the beginning of the show a LOT...
and agree on the very TEXAS tacky observations regarding the denim and patchwork...
i feel more of his YSL years in the black ruffled looks...
which I think is fine- as long as it's under his own name and not YSL's...

as far as this comment goes...


those "art gallery clothes" generally get waaay less attention around here, imo...
i mean...
it's usually just me and about 5 other posters who even comment on CDG, Yohji, Junya etc...
so, I think it's hard to really say that...
and i run around talking about all the sex in those collections...
...

you don't have to wear a skin tight dress to like sex...
in fact...
it's harder to be sexy with those clothes on...you can't move!
(have you ever tried to even walk in a hobble skirt?- they don't call it a hobble skirt for nothing)...
pretty much the only thing you can really do in some of these sorts of clothes is stand there and look pretty...
which makes you a sex OBJECT rather than an active participant...
and i do generally object to that...

that's why i like the ruffled dresses...they are tight in good spots and flow-y where they need to be...
with a gorgeous decollete...those are real clothes that could be worn by most anyone...

a LOT of women don't feel comfortable in clothes that show every curve or are in any way restrictive...you just feel uncomfortable...both physically and psychologically...
beaded dresses are hard to sit in, for example...
those beads just dig into your a** the whole time...
there are so many practical reasons why these are not every day clothes...
but who cares...
they aren't meant to be...

those ladies who live in the suburbs in texas will love the denim and fur...
i'd bank on that...

my friend from HS now lives in a HUGE house in the suburbs of NJ and she tried on a denim fur lined jacket with me one day in a shop...
i watched with horror as she took it off the rack...
but as soon as she got it on, WHAMMO!...
it made perfect sense for her and her lifestyle ...
of course you couldn't pay me to wear it, but it's great for her...

i mean- she'd look pretty strange running around her neighborhood in cdg...
so- it's all good...

it's not about the runway, in the end...
it's about the real way...

*of course, if you are a celebrity, then all bets are off, because in that case, you are buying a COSTUME to wear on the public stage...
and as costume, this stuff is fun...

fyi- i don't care for any of the designers spike mentioned either...
i don't get the appeal there at all...

I think you've summed it up best softgrey (not that that's shocking). Basically, everything has its place, and so long as it applies to someone's life somewhere it's valid.

It's the all-or-nothingness that gets frustrating, and I for one can't embrace a fashion world where only one thing or one way of doing it is treated like the correct or valid way and any other way is treated as lesser.

 

[Morphe]

What's with all the philosophising and the long-a$$ replies? It's a $HIT collection, pure and simple.

 

[#umero]

I'm so embarrassed I wrote this. I take every word back, I have no words to describe how bad this is.

I you.

 

[Uemarasan]

What's with all the philosophising and the long-a$$ replies? It's a $HIT collection, pure and simple.

I'm right with you there. It just becomes frustrating that in these Tom Ford threads (more than those of any other designer) the validity of a negative opinion actually has to be defended, though these long discussions can actually be productive personally.

 

[HeatherAnne]

I'm right with you there. It just becomes frustrating that in these Tom Ford threads (more than those of any other designer) the validity of a negative opinion actually has to be defended.

YES, that is a fact.

 

[Spike413]

I'm right with you there. It just becomes frustrating that in these Tom Ford threads (more than those of any other designer) the validity of a negative opinion actually has to be defended, though these long discussions can actually be productive personally.

Well it's a little exhausting hearing the same critiques of Ford -- not his clothes, not the presentation in question, but the man and his view on fashion -- season in and season out as well. Critique the clothes negatively until the cows come home, but does it always need to come back to a discussion of Ford's entire viewpoint on female sexuality every time he shows a dress?

I mean to be perfectly frank Uemarasan, I've been reading the exact same response from you about his collections since he showed his first women's collection under his own name four and a half years ago. Your feeling is perfectly valid and I'm certainly not telling you to keep it to yourself, but since you feel free to constantly voice it without even altering the way it's worded very much, why shouldn't the people who happen to disagree constantly voice their disagreement as well?

Seems sort of strange to me to say that it's frustrating to have to defend a negative opinion when it's just as frustrating to feel like you need to defend a positive one as well against people who simply do not like Tom Ford at all and who make no secret of it in every thread that pops up with his name on it. Again, please share your opinion as much and as thoughtfully as you like, but try not to be surprised if people critique it.

No disrespect intended, but since it was brought up I figured that made it open for discussion.

 

[Steddycam91]

I'm looking at the initial reactions to the collection and there were no cries of Ford being misogynistic or perverse or objectifying women. We all simply found many of the pieces ugly.

There has been a lot of defending of this show that involves deflection, and talking about how fixated the industry currently is with good taste, the subjectivity of taste, and how if this was Prada or Céline then the collection would be received differently. Acting as if Ford is some totally misunderstood fashion outsider or underdog. These conversations almost act to distract from the clothes at hand.

The dude's filthy rich and he's doing whatever he wants. Good for him. But he also just put out some clothes on the catwalk that we can all rightfully give our opinion on and call out as fugly.

 

[Uemarasan]

Well it's a little exhausting hearing the same critiques of Ford -- not his clothes, not the presentation in question, but the man and his view on fashion -- season in and season out as well. Critique the clothes negatively until the cows come home, but does it always need to come back to a discussion of Ford's entire viewpoint on female sexuality every time he shows a dress?

I mean to be perfectly frank Uemarasan, I've been reading the exact same response from you about his collections since he showed his first women's collection under his own name four and a half years ago. Your feeling is perfectly valid and I'm certainly not telling you to keep it to yourself, but since you feel free to constantly voice it without even altering the way it's worded very much, why shouldn't the people who happen to disagree constantly voice their disagreement as well?

Seems sort of strange to me to say that it's frustrating to have to defend a negative opinion when it's just as frustrating to feel like you need to defend a positive one as well against people who simply do not like Tom Ford at all and who make no secret of it in every thread that pops up with his name on it. Again, please share your opinion as much and as thoughtfully as you like, but try not to be surprised if people critique it.

No disrespect intended, but since it was brought up I figured that made it open for discussion.

I do believe I have the right to word in whatever way I like whatever critique of Ford I have, right? It's within the rules of the forums after all. What I find troubling is that responses to a negative opinion here are usually directed toward the nature of the opinion itself instead of simply disagreeing and offering a counter opinion. I don't think it's useful when opinions or the construction of opinions are being criticized instead of the designers and collections. I don't believe I've criticized a positive opinion here in the same way that a negative opinion has been. It comes across as the one making an opinion being indirectly criticized as pretentious, naive, Amish, and a hater of sex.

And of course my criticism will be the same after all these years. Ford's philosophy, after all, has not changed in all that time. And repetitive negative opinions happen in all the threads. I've seen people who dislike a certain designer make negative comments time and again in their threads, so I don't know why I'm singled out as a special case now? But if you feel that that I sound like a broken record, then please feel free to ignore me.

So, back on topic, yes, the clothes are ugly. Ugly colors. Ugly fabrics. Ugly design. Ugly is subjective. We know that, and we don't really need to be reminded of that.

 

[liliqouismoon]

Stopped being a fan after his stint at Gucci...I think that was the highlight of Tom's career. Although I hate the Juliet-sleeved silhouettes here reminiscent of Dolce Gabbana's romantic hippie look in the 90s (only updated with the use of his leit-motif leopard and the pop-art geometric patchworks and the "groundbreaking" denim,again so 90's),this isnt bad as the "Kapow" splattered dresses a few seasons ago.