Tom Ford S/S 2011 New York

[Nicolasa]

Collection | 1/3 | LQ


tomford.com

 

[Littleathquakes]

The great fashion designers have always proposed against whatever system was in place at the time. Coco Chanel loosened the sexual shapes of women from the suffocation of corsets. Yves Saint Laurent brought the idea that blackness is beautiful into the fashion dialogue. What has Tom Ford done but simply reinforced the notion that women have to be glamorous and sexy objects to be appealing? How is this an intelligent consideration of the sexuality of women? I find it demeaning and sexist.

There are plenty of people out there making clothes that do not fit with fashion's view of what clothes should be. That does not make them great. Personally I think those people try too hard and find their work contrived, insincere, and more often than not, strange. But that wasn't what made Chanel and YSL and other designers great either. They made great clothes - now what made those clothes great is subject to opinion. But it wasn't just an opposition to the then current industry.

Tom Ford is doing exactly what those designers you praised have done. Just because Chanel liberated women from corsets does not mean she made clothes so woman could look less sexy in them. Same for YSL. They weren't sending models down the runway in potato bags. They did not liberate woman from fashion. You make it seem like they fought the system when in fact they catered to the industry, the same one you find repulsive.

Listen, we all know it has its ups & downs, like any other industry, but I think you prefer to focus on the negative attributes. For every Tom Ford that you find repulsive, there is another brilliant designer who's making clothes that's in opposition to what you find so repulsive about Ford. But that's opposition against Ford - not the industry. Like others have posted, Ford is not the only one.

 

[Nicolasa]

Collection | 2/3 | LQ


tomford.com

 

[Nicolasa]

Collection | 3/3 | LQ


tomford.com

 

[mikeijames]

Glad you like the signature

I wonder if he does, though. What you're talking about is being a revolutionary, and it really has nothing to do with intelligence or talent. It has to do with #1, having a vision of how things should be different, and #2, having the balls to make it happen.

I think he does have some ideas about how things should be different ... #1, People should not be calling him Tom. #2, He doesn't like the fashion cycle. #3, He doesn't want his stuff exposed before it hits the stores. OK, so maybe he is a bit of a revolutionary, just not in the way you want him to be.

When it comes to women and the way we're stereotyped and objectified, I'm not sure he has any skin in the game. I don't know that he has the depth to care.

let's not forget that tom ford has revolted against the contemporary aesthetic that dictates that women should get poked, prodded, nipped and tucked to look like some plastic blow-up doll. he has stated that the natural curves and wrinkles of a woman find themselves part of the beauty of the real woman. while tom ford readily admits his appeal to the sexual, affluent customer, he has challenged some of the very notions that stand as platform planks for other houses. you won't find dior using older models. you won't find rick owens embracing curvy women. you won't find michael kors advising his customers against a facelift or botox. or donatella versace decrying the use of the breast implant and lift.

just because tom ford believes in the power of sexuality and it's transformative ability to put women on par with men does not mean he hasn't waged his own battles in the name of fashion. this very collection stands as quite the game changer in that it's neither ready-to-wear as we've understood it nor is it haute couture as its currently defined, yet it's timeless and personal.

tom ford is fashioning a new way forward; i just think we have to sit back and wait to see where he leads.

 

[Uemarasan]

There are plenty of people out there making clothes that do not fit with fashion's view of what clothes should be. That does not make them great. Personally I think those people try too hard and find their work contrived, insincere, and more often than not, strange. But that wasn't what made Chanel and YSL and other designers great either. They made great clothes - now what made those clothes great is subject to opinion. But it wasn't just an opposition to the then current industry.

Tom Ford is doing exactly what those designers you praised have done. Just because Chanel liberated women from corsets does not mean she made clothes so woman could look less sexy in them. Same for YSL. They weren't sending models down the runway in potato bags. They did not liberate woman from fashion. You make it seem like they fought the system when in fact they catered to the industry, the same one you find repulsive.

Listen, we all know it has its ups & downs, like any other industry, but I think you prefer to focus on the negative attributes. For every Tom Ford that you find repulsive, there is another brilliant designer who's making clothes that's in opposition to what you find so repulsive about Ford. But that's opposition against Ford - not the industry. Like others have posted, Ford is not the only one.

I didn't mean to suggest that revolting against the hegemony was the only criterion of greatness. A great designer has to know how to make great clothes, naturally, but for me greatness comes hand-in-hand with a revolution of ideas. It doesn't have to be political; it can be aesthetic.

I will stand up for what Chanel and Saint Laurent have done, because the system that was in place is vastly different from what Ford has inherited. I didn't mean to say Chanel made women less sexy; she was great because she redefined what women's sexuality was at the time with a drastic change in the shape and silhouette of clothes. Up until then the movements of women were limited by their wardrobe, the corset exaggerated their figures and emphasized their sexual attributes, all very t*ts and ***. The designs of Chanel sought to liberate female space, movement, and thus experience. Saint Laurent showed that blackness was as beautiful as whiteness, he insisted that women could wear men's clothes with Le Smoking and so expanded the idea of femininity. Saint Laurent was against the racial and domestic limitations of female sexuality during his time. I do not see how they simply catered to the industry in their most important work. They changed the vocabulary of fashion and, to an extent, female experience.

What did Ford inherit from the 80s? The worship of glamour, extravagance, sex, money, and fame. He has simply extended the timeline of these ideas into the 90s until now.

I don't see how my criticism of Ford automatically means that I prefer to be negative with regards to fashion. On the contrary, I love fashion, I believe in its power and its importance, almost too much to the point that I am more demanding of it. There are countless designers in fashion that I love (Chanel, Vionnet, Schiaparelli, Cardin, Elbaz, Sander, Marras, Westwood, the Belgian and the Japanese avant-garde). I don't think you can surmise my overall attitude from a few strongly critical posts on Tom Ford.

Again, let me reiterate: I am not against the idea of sexuality. I am against the idea that female sexuality has to be defined the way that Ford has. And I am singling out Ford because of the great and vast influence he has on fashion.

 

[Uemarasan]

Glad you like the signature

I wonder if he does, though. What you're talking about is being a revolutionary, and it really has nothing to do with intelligence or talent. It has to do with #1, having a vision of how things should be different, and #2, having the balls to make it happen.

I think he does have some ideas about how things should be different ... #1, People should not be calling him Tom. #2, He doesn't like the fashion cycle. #3, He doesn't want his stuff exposed before it hits the stores. OK, so maybe he is a bit of a revolutionary, just not in the way you want him to be.

When it comes to women and the way we're stereotyped and objectified, I'm not sure he has any skin in the game. I don't know that he has the depth to care.

I think it's because I'd like to think that intelligence should possess a strong moral and ethical dimension, and that intelligence is basically useless if it doesn't have moral courage. But I'm sure some will disagree.

But, yes, I do have certain expectations when it comes to intelligent people

 

[mikeijames]

I didn't mean to suggest that revolting against the hegemony was the only criterion of greatness. A great designer has to know how to make great clothes, naturally, but for me greatness comes hand-in-hand with a revolution of ideas. It doesn't have to be political; it can be aesthetic.

I will stand up for what Chanel and Saint Laurent have done, because the system that was in place is vastly different from what Ford has inherited. I didn't mean to say Chanel made women less sexy; she was great because she redefined what women's sexuality was at the time with a drastic change in the shape and silhouette of clothes. Up until then the movements of women were limited by their wardrobe, the corset exaggerated their figures and emphasized their sexual attributes, all very t*ts and ***. The designs of Chanel sought to liberate female space, movement, and thus experience. Saint Laurent showed that blackness was as beautiful as whiteness, he insisted that women could wear men's clothes with Le Smoking and so expanded the idea of femininity. Saint Laurent was against the racial and domestic limitations of female sexuality during his time. I do not see how they simply catered to the industry in their most important work. They changed the vocabulary of fashion and, to an extent, female experience.

What did Ford inherit from the 80s? The worship of glamour, extravagance, sex, money, and fame. He has simply extended the timeline of these ideas into the 90s until now.

I don't see how my criticism of Ford automatically means that I prefer to be negative with regards to fashion. On the contrary, I love fashion, I believe in its power and its importance, almost too much to the point that I am more demanding of it. There are countless designers in fashion that I love (Chanel, Vionnet, Schiaparelli, Cardin, Elbaz, Sander, Marras, Westwood, the Belgian and the Japanese avant-garde). I don't think you can surmise my overall attitude from a few strongly critical posts on Tom Ford.

Again, let me reiterate: I am not against the idea of sexuality. I am against the idea that female sexuality has to be defined the way that Ford has. And I am singling out Ford because of the great and vast influence he has on fashion.

this view reduces tom ford's view of sex and sexuality down to an almost silly level of simplicity. the type of sexuality presented as part of his eponymous collection has little to do with the sexuality he presented for yves saint laurent in the aughties nor the sexuality he presented for gucci in the nineties. it's clearly an evolution from things that have come before. it's interesting that this view further tries to praise yves saint laurent (the man) for propelling the ideas of androgynous sexiness and black beauty while overlooking the ways that tom ford has moved that forward even more. how can one count yves saint laurent as a soldier in this fashionable war and not count tom ford among that number?

if you're not against the idea of sexuality in general, who do you count as presenting a revolutionary idea for sexuality in the nineties, aughties, and today in fashion?

 

[tctra]

uemerasan. i think the problem is you want to define sexuality from an intellectual point of view. WE can do that till we're blue in the face, at the end of the day though, raw sexual appeal is all about t*ts and ****. you simply cannot change thousands of years of innate primal instinct. whether its tom ford now, or another designer decades or hundred years down the line, sexual appeal will always be instinctual not intellectual.

 

[fashionista-ta]

let's not forget that tom ford has revolted against the contemporary aesthetic that dictates that women should get poked, prodded, nipped and tucked to look like some plastic blow-up doll. he has stated that the natural curves and wrinkles of a woman find themselves part of the beauty of the real woman. while tom ford readily admits his appeal to the sexual, affluent customer, he has challenged some of the very notions that stand as platform planks for other houses. you won't find dior using older models. you won't find rick owens embracing curvy women. you won't find michael kors advising his customers against a facelift or botox. or donatella versace decrying the use of the breast implant and lift.

just because tom ford believes in the power of sexuality and it's transformative ability to put women on par with men does not mean he hasn't waged his own battles in the name of fashion. this very collection stands as quite the game changer in that it's neither ready-to-wear as we've understood it nor is it haute couture as its currently defined, yet it's timeless and personal.

tom ford is fashioning a new way forward; i just think we have to sit back and wait to see where he leads.

If Tom Ford is advising anyone against Botox, it's because he's afraid there won't be enough left for him

As part of the publicity for the current collection, I was just reading how he had some regret that while intoxicated, he personally assessed a woman's implants in the presence of her husband and advised her how she should properly massage them. I would love to believe what you say, but the evidence seems to be otherwise ...

 

[mikeijames]

If Tom Ford is advising anyone against Botox, it's because he's afraid there won't be enough left for him

As part of the publicity for the current collection, I was just reading how he had some regret that while intoxicated, he personally assessed a woman's implants in the presence of her husband and advised her how she should properly massage them. I would love to believe what you say, but the evidence seems to be otherwise ...

I'd like to see something more natural. I'm all for Botox, collagen, cosmetic surgery. But I've been wondering, Why can we send a man to the moon but we can't make a breast look real? Then I encountered a girl the other day who had implants that really looked natural. She had nursed and her breasts changed, so she had it done, and her breasts looked just so amazing and so real. I'm all for manipulation to a certain extent, but I think it's very important not to deny the fact that we are animals. We need to look human.

-- Mr. Ford, W Magazine.

 

[Lisa~~~*]

Harper's Bazaar US - January 2011

Scanned by me

 

[Uemarasan]

uemerasan. i think the problem is you want to define sexuality from an intellectual point of view. WE can do that till we're blue in the face, at the end of the day though, raw sexual appeal is all about t*ts and ****. you simply cannot change thousands of years of innate primal instinct. whether its tom ford now, or another designer decades or hundred years down the line, sexual appeal will always be instinctual not intellectual.

I'd like to believe that the human mind is great enough to override even the basest and most ingrained of conditioning, social, biological, or otherwise. That's why we're human in the first place. Anyway, I don't think I've ever said or suggested that sexuality is simply an intellectual matter. It CAN be intellectualized; there's a difference. I'd prefer to think of sexual appeal as an ongoing debate between what is desired of women and what women think of their bodies. No doubt men will always want women for their lady parts, but there's no denying the fact that ideas about sexual appeal have changed over centuries and are different across cultures. Human sexuality is many things at play: intellectual, cultural, instinctual. If sexual appeal were purely and only instinctual, we're no better than animals.

 

[Uemarasan]

That Tom Ford quote sounds as if he's just advocating cosmetic surgery that makes it seem like you haven't had anything done. In the end, it's still surgery and it's still artificial even if it simulates "nature". Does he actually hear what he's saying? Was he kidding?

Tom Ford, patron saint of natural-looking cosmetic surgery. How progressive.

this view reduces tom ford's view of sex and sexuality down to an almost silly level of simplicity. the type of sexuality presented as part of his eponymous collection has little to do with the sexuality he presented for yves saint laurent in the aughties nor the sexuality he presented for gucci in the nineties. it's clearly an evolution from things that have come before. it's interesting that this view further tries to praise yves saint laurent (the man) for propelling the ideas of androgynous sexiness and black beauty while overlooking the ways that tom ford has moved that forward even more. how can one count yves saint laurent as a soldier in this fashionable war and not count tom ford among that number?

if you're not against the idea of sexuality in general, who do you count as presenting a revolutionary idea for sexuality in the nineties, aughties, and today in fashion?

It's because Tom Ford's ideas about sexuality are that silly and simple. What brilliant and new ideas did he introduce, exactly?

I really don't see any kind of artistic evolution in Tom Ford's designs from his days at Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent. There might be some superficial differences (oh my God, fringe and long dresses! genius), but at the core he has stayed true to a certain vision. How are the silhouettes and cuts and even fabrics here any different from his previous work? Do you want to bring out photo by photo comparisons? The same clothes that fit the same bodies, the same obsessions that I have mentioned in this thread. A true evolution would be the work Phoebe Philo is doing for the house of Celine.

Not every decade has to have a revolutionary. The 90s did have Jil Sander and, to an extent, Jean-Paul Gaultier. The 2000s, that's still up in the air. By far, one of the worst decades for high-end fashion.

I will always have an issue with Tom Ford because no matter the embellishments or new influences or design ideas, I find his fundamental philosophy problematic. I'm not asking him to change because he cannot help it, as he has proven with this collection. He just stands in stark opposition to what I believe in.

 

[Littleathquakes]

I don't think you can surmise my overall attitude from a few strongly critical posts on Tom Ford.

Again, let me reiterate: I am not against the idea of sexuality. I am against the idea that female sexuality has to be defined the way that Ford has. And I am singling out Ford because of the great and vast influence he has on fashion.

I think I can.

Oh you don't need to reiterate, I get what you're saying. I just don't agree.

 

[Uemarasan]

I think I can.

Oh you don't need to reiterate, I get what you're saying. I just don't agree.

Of course, because all it takes to fully understand a person's complex love for fashion design is a few wordy posts on a forum thread. Well, then, you have made a very poor assessment of me. I focus equally on both the positive and negative aspects of fashion. I'm just not positive about the things that maybe you'd expect me to be positive about.

 

[mikeijames]

I'd like to believe that the human mind is great enough to override even the basest and most ingrained of conditioning, social, biological, or otherwise. That's why we're human in the first place. Anyway, I don't think I've ever said or suggested that sexuality is simply an intellectual matter. It CAN be intellectualized; there's a difference. I'd prefer to think of sexual appeal as an ongoing debate between what is desired of women and what women think of their bodies. No doubt men will always want women for their lady parts, but there's no denying the fact that ideas about sexual appeal have changed over centuries and are different across cultures. Human sexuality is many things at play: intellectual, cultural, instinctual. If sexual appeal were purely and only instinctual, we're no better than animals.

while it's true that the mind, the will, and the emotions of the human being have the ability to hold sway over the baser aspects, it does not erase them nor invalidate them. to deny those baser aspects would equate to denying one's humanity as fully as fully capitulating to them without taking into account those other higher aspects. with that said, one cannot find someone more on the vanguard of creating a new type of sexuality and a new openness with regard to that sexuality than those individuals like tom ford. in the nineties, the fashion world had jean-paul gaultier putting cone-shaped bras on over-sexed pop stars (a sexuality that relates more to the nineteeth century french aspect than it does toward anything revolutionary) and jil sander erasing the sex -- not to mention the sexuality -- from women by dressing them up in strict mens tailoring (a concept that dates back to the 1920s with women dressing up in mens suiting dietrich style). in this moment, we had tom ford proposing something that did not treat women like dolls nor like men but gave them the power to stand on equal footing. the red velvet pant suit that he put out for gucci caught fire in the fashion world because it so wholly represented the pantsuit-wearing minimalist nineties' girl attention, but brought it to a sexual pique. it showed that a woman could not only wear the pants, but she could use the very assets some designers would try to disguise as a means to stand on equal footing.

I will always have an issue with Tom Ford because no matter the embellishments or new influences or design ideas, I find his fundamental philosophy problematic. I'm not asking him to change because he cannot help it, as he has proven with this collection. He just stands in stark opposition to what I believe in.

at least, you've come to admit that it doesn't really matter how tom ford evolves or changes his design aesthetic across houses, but take issue with his emphasis on sexuality in general. anyone with even an amateur's eye can see that the trendy mass market stuff tom ford presented in the nineties bares little relationship to the niche instant-classic pieces tom ford presents today.

if one goes back to the tom ford for gucci advertising of the nineties, one would witness the pre-occupation with the notion that men and women stood as sexual equals: men and women in the same thongs, men and women in the same suits, men and women with the same jeans, the same patterns, the same hair, the same make up. tom ford, and others, admittedly, brought this idea of modern dressing and modern sexuality to the fore in the nineties.

in the early part of the aughties, while gucci continued on this course (with micah miller and kate moss or jr gallison and erin wasson both playing this game in the advertising), we saw something that did play with the intellect and embrace something more sensual rather than purely primal. the yves saint laurent collection didn't play with the idea of androgyny in quite the same way he did in the nineties and it didn't obfuscate the differences between men and women. yves saint laurent presented much more upfront references to sex -- sadomasochism, nipple adornment, etc. -- but it gave them to the wearer as a private pleasure. the ads focused on the erotic and not the p*rn*gr*ph*c. whether it found liya slowly untying her blouse or kim peers tucking herself into her dress, the clothes while dealing with sexual topics, did not focus on them as they did at gucci. at yves saint laurent, tom ford brought out the power, the joy, and yes, the sex appeal, of the feminine from the ruffle to the bow to the lace to the red lip to the flounce to the taffeta. this marked a change in the way contemporary society from the nineties viewed sex and sexuality. it ushered in a moment in the mid-aughties where "the ladylike" look held full sway in fashion (the mistake of the mid-aughties idea of the ladylike came when it tried to pare away the sexuality from the fashionability of this look).

now, as the fashionable enter a new decade, we find yet another approach to sex and sexuality again with some very bold designers at the forefront. in this age of austerity and consideration, sex and sexuality has become something regarded as a flight of fancy almost like an exotic item on a menu. both men and women, gay and straight, can pick and choose from whatever experiences happens to strike that individual as a whim in the moment. it's personal. it's an indulgence. it's a decision. it's not about the pansexuality of the seventies-come-nineties. it's not about the categorization and labeling that society obsessed about in the aughties. we've moved to a place where the issues of sex and sexuality while ever-present remains as non-constroversial as grocery store sushi. in this environment, there exist designers who still cling to old models or ones like phoebe philo and tom ford who give the woman unique personal timeless options that allow her to express her sexuality on her terms.

however, if one simply takes issue with putting sexuality forward AT ALL, one would miss the revolutions that have occurred in this arena over the past twenty years under the guidance of tom ford and other style makers of his ilk.

source: styleregistry.livejournal.com

 

[mademoiselle_]

Since Frida got to Gucci all we've been hearing is "Come back Tom" "I miss Tom" blablabla now he designs for women once again and many don't like, this is what he has always been I don't see anything new here, still screams Ford

I love the collection

 

[chinsumo]

TOM FORD'S STOREFRONT @ RODEO

racked

 

[Uemarasan]

Mikeijames, I appreciate the thought and effort into your post. Let me just respond with a few disagreements:

The Gaultier of the 90s was very different from the sex as power, subversion, rebellion, and ultimately icon of the 80s and early 90s. If nothing else, this is what Ford had inherited when he began. The Gaultier of the 90s sought to further question and unite the differences between male and female sexualities. At this point in history his male and female collections began to intensify their dialogue with each other. Prior to the middle 90s sex as power (Mugler, Gaultier), androgyny and sexual deconstruction (Kawakubo) were the great ideas of the 80s. However, the idea of sex remained in the realm of male or female or female as male. The Gaultier of the 90s was about a true bisexuality, about something both male AND female, about transcending gender boundaries. And this is very different from Tom Ford because Ford didn't really invent new dressing. He just swapped clothes around. Gaultier actually made and reinvented patterns.

The idea that the aesthetic of Jil Sander is about erasing sex is incorrect. If all else, she redefined female sexuality by reconfiguring the tailoring of the female body. If you will look at how her clothes from the 90s were made, you will notice that many of the patterns deviated from tradition. She moved darts around, experimented with cut and silhouette, used patterns which were very different from her early work. In the 70s, she simply adapted men's tailoring to female bodies in the same way that Saint Laurent did. In the 90s, that had evolved into a kind of female tailoring that had its own particular vocabulary. Not even Saint Laurent (or anyone else for that matter) pushed the idea of female tailoring that far, and THAT was what was revolutionary about Jil Sander in the 90s. She was not against the idea of sex or sexuality. She enhanced it. And to suggest that this concept dates back to Dietrich seems to misunderstand Sander's and Saint Laurent's contributions to fashion. Dietrich was about performance, about women pretending to be men, about the transgression of gender roles, but hers is an aesthetic that never entered the mainstream of fashion until Saint Laurent introduced Le Smoking. Dietrich was a woman who dressed in men's suits. Le Smoking was a woman's suit. There is a world of difference in that.

Again, with Ford, it seems to me that so many of his ideas have already been done before. The idea that women are equal with men? Again, Saint Laurent. A wardrobe that doesn't have to be masculine but embraces femininity, empowers it, and doesn't try to hide it? Gaultier and Sander have been working on this idea much earlier in their careers, although in very contrasting aesthetics. Perhaps even Halston. Sex in fashion? Mugler, Gaultier, Lang had better ideas. I'm sorry to say but that red pantsuit, up close, really isn't very innovative or particularly creative. The fit is as wonderful as the price commands, but the cut is deeply conventional. No real deviation of depth from the pantsuit patterns of the 70s. I can make that exact same article from a basic pattern without much effort. Even Ossie Clark made more interesting pantsuits in more interesting fabrics. The velvet pantsuit was practically a wardrobe staple of the 70s. Ford's was iconic, yes, but more as a result of marketing and celebrity PR than any inherent qualities.

I still see the spirit of Ford consistent throughout his work, and I really don't see a deep aesthetic or intellectual evolution from the 90s to now. Again, I don't have a problem with an emphasis on sexuality, I have a problem with his IDEAS of sexuality. And, really, I don't see how he has introduced any revolutionary ideas about sexuality in the work under his name. Sexuality as a choice, on your own terms? Really? I think the problem is that the topic of sexuality has been so thoroughly exhausted by fashion already that at this point it's like talking about the weather: banal, unnecessary, mildly interesting, simply occupying blank space. I think fashion should be talking about other things. It will take a wiser and more intelligent man than Ford to propose something new about female sexuality in this day and age.

Sorry, but there are designers out there who have more talent than Ford when it comes to the construction of clothes. And there are designers out there who are more intelligent when it comes to their ideas about fashion, sex, and beauty. Tom Ford just has better marketing, PR, and a bigger, younger, and more vocal cult.