Tom Ford S/S 2011 New York

[Uemarasan]

i think to say that Tom Ford was never really a designer is a bit far... I think that he's a designer I just think that he has an aesthetic and he's not going to let the times and the trends change his view on fashion. He sees the world his way, he believes women should dress and carry themselves this way, and so that's what his collections portray. His work at Gucci, YSL, and for his namesake label may differ incrementally but at the heart of it all you can still look at it and say that's Tom, that's Tom Ford... and now he feels like glamour is removed
Just because he doesn't design what you like... that doesn't negate him from being a designer.

Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Tom Ford is not a designer. He possesses great skill and ability, but it is his vision for fashion that I find bankrupt. I mean, Leni Riefenstahl made morally obscene films, but there is no denying her talent and technical genius as a director.

Also, there are lovers of fashion here who don't believe that whether or not something makes money is the only measurement of quality. So Tom Ford will make a lot of coin. I couldn't care less.

Speaking for myself, I am not calling into question Tom Ford's design cred, I will gladly grant him that; it is more about what is the underpinning of the Tom Ford legend, and to me that is more about business, marketing, personal promotion, cult of personality and spectacle. Yes fashion design and style are factors as well, but they are not, IMO, the primary factors, especially when it comes to womenswear and women's style in recent years.

Excellent point. I think you've hit the nail on the head for me. Tom Ford represents nearly everything that I find problematic with fashion.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

you see, from my perspective, it's Tom Ford being one of the few people who actually mastered fashion as an art form, first and foremost wearable art. so many other designers create pieces that noone can wear. pieces that, when you wear them, noone will be stunned and speechless, thinking 'i want that'.

i don't believe in fashion as only raw idea. you have to refine your ideas so it's wearable. if you, as a designer, only show raw ideas on the runway, which might be thought provoking and intellectual, but ultimately don't make it wearable and flatter your customer, you're a costume designer for a college play.

Tom Ford has shown so many ideas, so many facets, but his primary goal was to make a woman look desirable. and in that regard he has, in my opinion, absolutely succeeded. of course said woman is of a certain status, but he does cater to different bodytypes and women of all ages. i can't say that a lot of other designers are so intent on making their female customers look dashing.

if you forget the fact that women want to be flattered and the customers want clothes that they can actually wear, you'll get fired or you don't move merchandise and your company goes kaput. THAT is business and i see no problem with that. as long as you stay within certain boundaries, you can play as much as you want.

i mean, WHAT do you find beautiful and desirable?

 

[JuiceMajor]

this is just sexy beautiful clothing...simple as!
nothing to be serious about being intellectual or not!

 

[Uemarasan]

Street_a_Licious: The thing is I don't see how Tom Ford clothes are democratic when it comes to body types. They are flattering to precisely two kinds: flat-chested slender girls or sexy, hourglass-shaped women. The only kinds of bodies that men stereotypically find sexually appealing. And always tall or in towering heels to make up for the difference.

To make it clear to you, my perspective on fashion is this: fashion is art. Fashion is design. Fashion is wearable. Fashion is commercial. Fashion is costume. Fashion is a concept. Fashion is communal. Fashion is personal. Fashion is a statement. Fashion is a solution. It is all these things, a combination of these things, a contrast of these things, or an overlapping of these things. Why restrict what fashion is or what it can be? Because the definition of fashion for me is simply the way to dress. If the body can accommodate it - flattering or not - then it is worth discussing as fashion.

I have no problem with people seeing fashion as ultimately a business, and I hope to expect the same courtesy when I say that I am ultimately not interested in it from a business perspective.

What do I find beautiful or desirable? There's really no easy answer to that, but I guess it depends on whatever response fashion gives to the idea of this is why we dress.

 

[Spike413]

I never said that, and I don't want it to come across here that I'm challenging anyone's intelligence. I used that statement as an argument because my issue is with the double-standard that exists that calling someone "pretentious" is acceptable whereas calling someone "dumb" is not.

Besides, I believe my post has made it plainly obvious that I am responding visually and emotionally to this collection. Here is the woman who can wear Tom Ford clothes: genetically superior, wealthy, exclusive, jet-set, and willing to torture her body to gym-hard celebrity-model-fashion magazine standards. Even going by what the women invited to wear the clothes in this presentation have said - Julianne Moore (of all people) was panicking about dieting and Rachel Feinstein was concerned about how she looked in the clothes (they solved it with a corset, of course!) - these are clothes that are meant to be worn only if your body conforms and contorts to the Tom Ford standard. And that has been always been true of his work not just here but ever since. I find that aesthetically reprehensible.

If you want me to viscerally react to this collection, then here it is in one word: YUCK.

It may just be clothing for a number of people, but the idea of fashion is much more to me than that. I think I've made that clear ever since the beginning, and I don't see how one perspective is necessarily right and one is not.

And that's not true of countless other designers, frankly more so than it is of Tom Ford???

Rick Owen's wraith-like leather jackets and clingy jersey knits don't exactly hide bumps or rolls. Ghesquiere's skinny trousers aren't likely to flatter those who don't already have fit legs. With the way Haider Ackermann cuts, drapes and bares skin you'd have a lot of trouble hiding any flaws. And good luck trying to make anyone who isn't on the Vogue Paris diet fit into anything by Balmain.

And I just want to point out that yes, while many of the non-model women were wearing corsets those corsets didn't alter their size, they altered their shape. Rita Wilson doesn't have a model body and her corset didn't make her appear to have a model body, it just gave her a defined hourglass figure. Same with Beyonce. Same with Rachel Feinstein. And even with the corsets there was a hell of a lot more variation in size and proportion on this runway than on any others we see each season.

I get not liking Ford, and I get not liking this collection, but calling him out for doing the exact same thing as every single one of his peers is more than a little unfair.

 

[Uemarasan]

And that's not true of countless other designers, frankly more so than it is of Tom Ford???

Rick Owen's wraith-like leather jackets and clingy jersey knits don't exactly hide bumps or rolls. Ghesquiere's skinny trousers aren't likely to flatter those who don't already have fit legs. With the way Haider Ackermann cuts, drapes and bares skin you'd have a lot of trouble hiding any flaws. And good luck trying to make anyone who isn't on the Vogue Paris diet fit into anything by Balmain.

And I just want to point out that yes, while many of the non-model women were wearing corsets those corsets didn't alter their size, they altered their shape. Rita Wilson doesn't have a model body and her corset didn't make her appear to have a model body, it just gave her a defined hourglass figure. Same with Beyonce. Same with Rachel Feinstein. And even with the corsets there was a hell of a lot more variation in size and proportion on this runway than on any others we see each season.

I get not liking Ford, and I get not liking this collection, but calling him out for doing the exact same thing as every single one of his peers is more than a little unfair.

Well, first of all, I detest Balmain. And I detest many of the designers that show at Milan.

But I will argue on behalf of Rick Owens and Nicolas Ghesquiere (who I don't even like that much), because the items that you mention are staples in their work, yes, but are only a fraction of their overall aesthetic. There is more depth to what Rick Owens and Nicolas Ghesquiere are doing. What they're ultimately trying to propose as a way of dressing is so vastly different from what Tom Ford is communicating. With Ford, his message is constant throughout even his days at Gucci and YSL: dress as what is already expected of a sexual object.

I believe the same can be argued with regards to Ackermann, because the primary agenda of many of his collections are not even about sexualizing the body. It is like the difference between a nude and a p*rn*gr*ph*c image. But I think we should wait and see how he develops his vision further.

In the end, for me, it is more of a question of agenda. I am not against the idea of female sexuality, but I am uncomfortable with the terms that Tom Ford has set out with his work. I have no problem calling out other designers on that same agenda, but given the unanimous critical appraisal that Ford has received and the fact that he is a man of immense talent, then it is ever more unfortunate in my view that this is what his contribution to fashion is.

 

[markese91]

I'm confused you're faulting Tom Ford because of the FIT of his garments? Would you fault plus size models for making pieces that only look good on plus sized girls?? I think the idea is ludicrous. As a competent designer you have to know your customer, what she wants to look like ini addition to what she ACTUALLY looks like. Tom Ford knows both of these and caters to it. These women weren't complaining about working out, you would as well if you were going to be in a fashion show... well i'm not sure about you but most people would. They became self conscious and I don't think Tom should be blamed... he brings out the best in people. In my humble opinion.

 

[Uemarasan]

The fit of the clothes really isn't what I'm criticizing Tom Ford about...

Like I said, it's more than that. It's about Tom Ford throughout his career, in his overall creative direction, tapping into the most exploitative of desires - commercial, physical, aesthetic, cultural - regarding female sexuality. He is simply enabling and nourishing the system that is already in place.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

Ackermann's latest collections have become more and more sexy, it's a big reason why i'm becoming a bigger fan with every collection.

Tom Ford might be big on doing 'sex' and 'glamour', but unlike other fashion houses (Balmain, Pucci) he's doing it with such an amount of class.

 

[Crying Diamonds]

^ As in, he actually has some class.

 

[Fatalefashion]

Very gorgeous....but nothing is so BOOM, definitely for me no.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Honestly, I don't find the clothes you get to see here all too exciting - He's done much better, worked-out pieces in his last few years at Saint Laurent and Gucci, and you could see that Alessandra Facchinetti must have had a strong hand in the design of the pieces as the two collections she did for Gucci showed just as much glamour and intricacy in craft and detailing as those that Tom Ford did for his swan song collection.

Sure, there is always a market for straight forward, glamourous clothes. But these ones lack a sense of modernity that elevates them above the 70ies retro glam he's been channelling so obviously these days. Quite a let down, but also quite expected, when you see the thread running through his solo work after the Gucci days.

And, now he wants to be called Mr.

I have yet to come across anyone else who's 'discovered' spirituality + now wants to be called by his formal title. I mean, Mr Lama? Mr Tolle?

 

[markese91]

Like I said, it's more than that. It's about Tom Ford throughout his career, in his overall creative direction, tapping into the most exploitative of desires - commercial, physical, aesthetic, cultural - regarding female sexuality. He is simply enabling and nourishing the system that is already in place.

You're faulting him for working the system already in place? So instead of trying to work for a magazine I should make my own? Every stylist should start their own magazine? Instead of using a stove that I can buy I should use my own? For that matter shouldn't bloggers stop blogging, aren't they only enabling and nourishing this information age that we find ourself in... I normally don't do this but your statements really aren't holding the Perrier that they should :/

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Aargh, can't find the post your Uemarasan quote came from ... but I quite agree. When you have male designers who don't really relate sexually to women themselves, you get either asexual or oversexed clothes, IMO. Tom being a leading example of the latter. I find it really unsatisfactory. Both categories make Donna Karan look like a genius ...

But I think it's also symptomatic of the whole OTT quality of his personality.

 

[Uemarasan]

You're faulting him for working the system already in place? So instead of trying to work for a magazine I should make my own? Every stylist should start their own magazine? Instead of using a stove that I can buy I should use my own? For that matter shouldn't bloggers stop blogging, aren't they only enabling and nourishing this information age that we find ourself in... I normally don't do this but your statements really aren't holding the Perrier that they should :/

Okay, allow me to make some clarifications so that you know where I'm coming from.

All that Tom Ford represents, not just the collections but the brand image, the photo shoots, the clientele, the presentations, the ads, the media image of the creator, his personality, his social circle, his projects, the very kind of lifestyle Tom Ford argues for is something I find repulsive. The obsolete idea that fashion and sex appeal primarily belongs to a self-admiring and exclusive jet-setting social class populated by those who think glamour, sex, wealth, fame, celebrity are the important things we must aspire to. This is the system I am talking about, the identities of women circumscribed by their access to these factors, the alpha female constructed upon these closed parameters. I prefer to live in a society wherein this old, almost fascist, close-minded kind of thinking has no place.

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.

Yes, this is the system that is in place, but people know if the system in place is rotten, and I deplore anyone who capitulates to this system and benefits from it. But unlike, say, Dolce and Gabbana, I single out Tom Ford because he has the brains and talent to know better. By far, this is the side of fashion I dislike immensely. The obsession with celebrities, glamazons, red-carpet queens, divas, inner circles. The vulgar side.

 

[Uemarasan]

^ Aargh, can't find the post your Uemarasan quote came from ... but I quite agree. When you have male designers who don't really relate sexually to women themselves, you get either asexual or oversexed clothes, IMO. Tom being a leading example of the latter. I find it really unsatisfactory. Both categories make Donna Karan look like a genius ...

But I think it's also symptomatic of the whole OTT quality of his personality.

Excellent point! I have noticed this as well, that, unfortunately, many male designers seem to have very unrealistic expectations or a distorted image of the female body.

By the way, I only noticed the quote you're using as your signature. Magnificent

 

[markese91]

You know what I think that we're really not going to get anywhere...

 

[Uemarasan]

Your call, but I think any discussion is healthy even if both sides disagree. The point is not to see who is "right" or "wrong". I mean, the discussion is the end in itself. I just wanted to point out what you might have misunderstood when I mentioned a system, because fashion answers to a system different from magazines and blogging (primarily information-dissemination systems) and the manufacture of stoves (industry-product system). Each system has a set of different principles in place, and I think the system of fashion can be easily condemnable if it's not careful.

 

[secretqueens]

Okay, allow me to make some clarifications so that you know where I'm coming from.

All that Tom Ford represents, not just the collections but the brand image, the photo shoots, the clientele, the presentations, the ads, the media image of the creator, his personality, his social circle, his projects, the very kind of lifestyle Tom Ford argues for is something I find repulsive. The obsolete idea that fashion and sex appeal primarily belongs to a self-admiring and exclusive jet-setting social class populated by those who think glamour, sex, wealth, fame, celebrity are the important things we must aspire to. This is the system I am talking about, the identities of women circumscribed by their access to these factors, the alpha female constructed upon these closed parameters. I prefer to live in a society wherein this old, almost fascist, close-minded kind of thinking has no place.

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.

Yes, this is the system that is in place, but people know if the system in place is rotten, and I deplore anyone who capitulates to this system and benefits from it. But unlike, say, Dolce and Gabbana, I single out Tom Ford because he has the brains and talent to know better. By far, this is the side of fashion I dislike immensely. The obsession with celebrities, glamazons, red-carpet queens, divas, inner circles. The vulgar side.

This is so eloquent and intelligent and amazing. You are my new favorite person.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Yes, this is the system that is in place, but people know if the system in place is rotten, and I deplore anyone who capitulates to this system and benefits from it. But unlike, say, Dolce and Gabbana, I single out Tom Ford because he has the brains and talent to know better. By far, this is the side of fashion I dislike immensely. The obsession with celebrities, glamazons, red-carpet queens, divas, inner circles. The vulgar side.

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.