Tom Ford S/S 2011 New York

[markese91]

i'm confused why are you guys bashing the use of the corset as if Ford is an abnormality since women wear corsets under his pieces??

 

[Spike413]

^ Exactly. He ain't the first and he won't be the last.

I mean I know it's fun to pretend that a) Tom Ford is the first and only designer to have made something that doesn't flatter every single woman on the face of the earth and b) that it's somehow his fault that Mrs. Bening or her stylist (assuming she has one) was oblivious to the fact that the dress she was wearing simply wasn't the most flattering thing on her, but let's be real; he isn't, and it's not. All this really boils down to was that it was the wrong dress for Bening. And since most evening dresses from most designers at all price points are either extremely demanding of the wearer (i.e., slinky/drapey/clingy/cut down to there), requiring the addition of some kind of foundation garment if you feel you have a less than flawless body, or come with built in boning, padding or corsetry to make it appear that you do have a flawless body I think that discussing the corset on Rita Wilson is kind of pointless. Clearly the dress was originally designed with a corset to be worn underneath, so if you choose not to wear the corset you're doing so at your own risk, and if the dress no longer looks perfect it's because you altered the design not because the designer shouldn't have put a corset in it in the first place. Besides, why the hell should Ford be expected to make a universally flattering dress that requires no internal structure, no hidden spanx, and no frippery to distract from any bodily shortcomings when none of his contemporaries are? I mean can anyone say that the Versace number January Jones picked would work on someone who isn't statuesque and extremely fit? How about the Nina Ricci Halle Berry wore which is only enhancing an already ideal figure, or the Armani on Anne Hathaway that leaves no room for an actual bra, or the Calvin Klein on Emma Stone that anyone with breasts larger than a B cup could just forget about looking all lean and sleek in? What about the Jil Sander on Tilda Swinton, which would overwhelm any woman under a certain height and add bulk to any woman over a certain dress size? Even Julianne Moore in Lanvin, a label lauded as catering to a huge array of women, looked rather shapeless and was somewhat drowned by all of the excess fabric on her dress. How come none of those designers are being called out for making clothes that only work for certain bodies? Why is Ford a target for criticism that nearly any designer could be a target for, other than the critic having a personal bias based on their own taste?

 

[Salvatore]

I have always looked at Tom Ford on the side of demi-couture rather than PAP. The luxury is in his details. I cannot remember who said it, but haute couture is made to hide the flaws and enhance the other parts so the use of padding, corsets, and other hidden design elements was standard for quite some time. And if you're at this certain price point, of course you will want all of the design tricks pulled out if you require them. Like many other designers do, as Spike mentioned, built-in boning and corsets and padding are standard and if the wearer does not want that, then the design is not the full essence. It is really unbelievable to say it is Tom Ford's fault that she did not look her best. That is like someone who is morbidly obese saying to McDonald's that they are the reason for their obesity. Please get real.

 

[Littleathquakes]

I speak from a long-held, very anti-Ford point-of-view. Surely that much is apparent and that there should be certain expectations about what I'm going to say. I am not going to have "soft" opinions. Again, can this thread be more about Ford and less about the one person in question and anymore ad hominem issues? Let's go back to discussing the designer and his work. Thanks.

that's all I'm going to say.

 

[Leeroi]

So.... from where this discussion has lead to.... most designers from the likes of Lagerfeld and Galliano are horrible since their clothes look better on models who have "unrealistic" body types?

Interesting.

Also, aside from the horrible hair and makeup, Annette Bening actually looks nice.

 

[fashionista-ta]

So.... from where this discussion has lead to.... most designers from the likes of Lagerfeld and Galliano are horrible since their clothes look better on models who have "unrealistic" body types?

Interesting.

Also, aside from the horrible hair and makeup, Annette Bening actually looks nice.

That's a value judgment ...

If you look at Christina Hendricks' thread, IMO dresses often look better on her than on the runway model. I'm sure some would disagree.

In my world, looking pregnant when you're not is not looking nice.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

maybe that's because, after all, Christina is still quite fit, bodywise. i've seen photoshoots of her and while she sure ain't lacking in the T & A section, she doesn't have a tummy per se.

meanwhile, women over a certain age who don't work out too much, seem to develop a little 'pouch' so it *looks* like they're in early pregnancy.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Annette looks about 5 months along. All I'm saying is, it's unusual. I can't remember seeing someone look that bad on the red carpet ever. Now she obviously has the right to wear the dress anyway she wants. But I certainly hope there was a discussion where Tom said, This dress really clings, it was designed to be worn with serious corsetry, and that's the way it's going to be most flattering.

Christina has a very hourglass figure, but I'm certain she wears corsets a lot.

So when this happens to 'women over a certain age,' and let's say maybe they don't feel like being encased in an Iron Maiden. Should they be relegated to some sort of middle-aged fashion equivalent of an old folks' home? Is this something designers should not be thinking about, because after all they are artistes?

 

[Uemarasan]

First of all, I don't know how bias is a bad thing since an opinion wouldn't be possible without bias.

And, yes, my criticism is that it was designed with a corset in mind. Personally, the corset is an article of dressing that should remain in the historical books. I find it extremely misogynistic and something close to a torture device.

The thing is nearly every article of clothing Tom Ford has designed demands the same uniform kinds of body shape: a fantastic body or a model's body. He does not have much range when it comes to a sense of proportion. That's the difference between him and, say, what Elbaz is doing for Lanvin. A middle-aged woman who is not ridiculously fit can look great in many a Lanvin dress, without the aid of a foundation garment. The design allows that she has that choice to put on spanx or not. With Tom Ford, it feels like the clothes are making the choice for the woman instead of the other way around. There is no other way to wear it. And I single out that Ford dress because it is extremely representative of Ford's aesthetic, but my criticism applies to the rest of this collection.

At this point in fashion history, I'd like to see more design proposals that do not demand the use of spanx, corsetry, boning, padding, basically anything that enhances the body. Wouldn't it be nice to see designs borne out of the many possible configurations of the shape of the female body instead of the other way around?

Also, since this is a Tom Ford thread, wouldn't it be better to focus any criticism on him primarily rather than extend that criticism to other designers again and again? They have their own threads. Of course, I have no problem indulging such a discussion if you want to start talking about, say, Max Azria for Herve Leger or Versace versus Ford. And I've already said that my criticism of Tom Ford is not exclusive to him. For me, it's a matter of criticizing a designer's overall vision, what he conceives the Tom Ford "woman" to be, and so far it seems like there are only two kinds of that woman.

Much as I dislike Lagerfeld, his designs for Chanel cater to many body types, and I prefer seeing a Chanel garment outside of the runway or editorial context. By the way, I thought Julianne Moore looked exquisite in that Lanvin. And that Versace dress on January Jones was grotesque.

Also, apologies if I won't be able to add to this thread anytime soon. I'll be going away on a trip, but I thank you all for the fascinating discussion so far! It's certainly helped to crystallize several of my ideas about fashion design and female sexuality.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

Haider Ackermann's designs wouldn't look good on a woman who wasn't fit. the way he reveals parts of the body nowadays, the woman would have to have a pretty damn toned body to wear it well.

same applies to the Belgian designers. altho, in fact, those clothes tend to look rather shapeless. unless, of course, shapeless would be preferable to creating a sexually alluring silhouette? who needs that anyways these days.

and the same also applies to Rei's CdG.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I find Dries quite wearable, and I wouldn't call it shapeless.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

imo Dries is the big exception from the Belgian designers as his clothes are generally very luxe and much more wearable compared to his comrades.

 

[Flashbang]

youkioske

 

[helmut.newton]

^^^ Amazing!

Does anyone have other photos of the accessories; particularly the shoes? I'm curious to see them in detail!

 

[Spike413]

That bag is gorgeous. I was wondering what the website meant when those minaudieres were described as being made out of glass.

 

[Flashbang]

vvshu

 

[ultramarine]

"Price on request" and Tom Ford on the label can only mean ... heart-attack prices!

Still incredible stuff! that Mosaic bag <3

 

[Spike413]

The shoes are pretty pricey, but for the most part they're not any more expensive than a lot of what Louboutin sells. Those lace and feather ones above are in the $2,400 range, while the fishnet version of that same shoe is around $1,400. The patent tuxedo pumps with the bows are a little over $1,000.

The fishnet boots, on the other hand, are staggeringly expensive. I think the ones with the lacing up the front as worn by Anja and Jac are $5,200.

 

[Ives927]

^ That is simply absurd and greedy!

 

[Spike413]

^ Is it really though? Think of what houses like Chanel and Vuitton, not to mention Louboutin, charge for their more elaborate shoes and it kind of puts the price in perspective. I mean yeah, $5k is a lot of money for shoes, but it's not entirely ludicrous these days.