Allow me to tell you about the Tom Ford room. Stay with me; I promise I’ll get to relationship values too.
Last summer, while in NYC, I spent a day at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wandering around the galleries, I came across the entrance to the exhibition In America: An Anthology of Fashion. Despite my passion for fashion, I almost walked on. After all, I’d already spent time with the first portion of the exhibition, In America: A Lexcion of Fashion, and there’s so much to see at The Met–did I really want to devote more of my time there to fashion? Well, yes.
The assignment: Each period furnished room in The American Wing of The Met was assigned to a different American film director. Their task was to create a narrative scene in their assigned room using clothing from the Met’s collection.
The execution of the task was wide-ranging. Sofia Coppola’s room was a disappointment. Assigned a 19th century room, she dressed the mannequins in 19th century clothes and placed them in predictable groupings. Uninspired. I could’ve easily accomplished the same outcome or better.
Chloe Zhao’s staging of the Shaker Retiring Room was more interesting. While the room itself is circa 1835, Zhao intermixed period costumes with clothes from the next century, specifically, Claire McCardell pieces from the 1930s-40s. And yet, what a fitting partnership of simple, utilitarian, austere fashion and furnishing. So removed in time, yet the hardships of Depression and wartime impacted fashion with a similar visual aesthetic that Shakers opted for via philosophy and religion. The pairing was interesting, and it worked.
Still with me? We’re almost there; only a couple more rooms to go. It’s worth the wait…
Janicza Bravo’s Rococo Revival Parlor could have been a scene from To Catch A Thief–a lone manequin, clad in a gown Grace Kelly could easily have worn, was staged in an extravagantly decorated side room. Chairs are pushed aside, the mannequin’s bolero jacket hangs on one chair, her cake plate sits atop another, and her shoes have been cast off–she’s taking a moment. There’s both a palpable external and internal narrative in the composition.
Martin Scorsese was assigned the Frank Lloyd Wright room and rose to the occasion. A party of mannequins dressed in period formal wear and placed in conversational groupings suited the setting. A soundtrack of an intimate conversation between a couple played on a loop–which couple was it? And what about the man(nequin) just outside the window looking in? The scene had an undercurrent of noir. Fashion, furnishing, art, story.
And then, there was the Tom Ford room…officially Gallery 735. The space itself is unique–the room is a large circle with John Vanderlyn’s painting ‘Panoramic View of the Palace and Gardens of Versailles‘ on the wall encircling the space. Two mannequins outiftted as regal doormen greeted me at the entrance. Upon entering, I was gobsmacked.
In the center of the room, the mannequins were in an all out fashion battle, airborne with martial art kicks and dueling swords! They were dynamic and energetic. Ford made them come alive with movement– the fashion simultaneouly still and in motion, like a movie freeze-frame. His inspiration: the Grand Divertissement à Versailles (Great Entertainment at Versailles) Fashion Event of November 28, 1973, commonly referred to as The Battle of Versailles, and so Ford staged it.
The Battle of Versailles was a fundraiser with five elite French fashion houses (Marc Bohan/Christian Dior; Pierre Cardin; Givenchy; Yves St. Laurent; and Emanuel Ungaro) versus five American ready-to-wear designers (Bill Blass; Stephen Burrows; Halston; Anne Klein; and Oscar de la Renta). The American designers were the underdogs, and the underdogs flipped it, turning the fashion world upside-down that day. American ready-to-wear dominated French haute-couteure with a gut punch. Tom Ford made it a literal kick to the gut! Brilliant!
Mesmerized, I circled the scene processing the fashion, the poses, the setting, the scene as a whole, and all the levels that Tom Ford was hitting it on–historical, metaphorical, visual, cultural, locale, narrative. It was all so pertinent, so perfect, so scintillating. Spellbound, I couldn’t stop thinking about the Tom Ford room. Back in Nebraska a few days later, I googled ‘Battle of Versailles,’ found a documentary about it (Versailles ’73: American Runway Revolution), and downloaded an app just so I could watch it. I wanted to know more.
Have you ever felt like that about someone? Mesmerized? So gobsmacked you can’t stop thinking about them? So charmed that you want to explore the niches of who they are and learn them better? You hadn’t forgotten this is a dating blog, had you?
I seek stimulation; I need stimulation. Without stimulation, I wither. I need to be intellectually engaged, and I seek stimulation in many forms–visual, geographical, experiential, physical, cultural, artistic, linguistic, academic, creative, narrative. And that’s what I seek in a partner–a stimulating companion, a man who can expand my universe and understanding, a man who can show me new vistas. I’m looking for the Tom Ford room in a man.
I’ve dated such men–Damon, the botanist; Isaac, the art historian; David, the writer; and David, the filmmaker (I’ve dated my share of Davids), to name a few. They’re men who are actively engaged with the art of living and learning, and this makes them engaging company. I’ve enjoyed having them open their worlds to me, expanding my universe. Anything less would be settling. If a man doesn’t have expanses to reveal to me, I’ll look for stimulation elsewhere, because expanding my universe is not only a relationship value, but a core life value. I want to engage with my world and keep learning, keep expanding what I know, where I go, and who I can be. And if I want that for myself, then I need it in a partner.
Ironically, by expanding my universe, it shrinks the world, making it more familiar, more intimate, more comfortable, and less intimidating. Simultaneously stimulating and comfortable. That’s the man I seek. The aforementioned men are all Tom Ford room men, and I’ve dated others as well. They’re a rarified breed of man. And while lasting relationship with a Tom Ford room man has eluded me to date, I won’t settle for less. I only need one of them to step it up and stick around. I’ll keep expanding my universe and hope that maybe someday one of them will.
And what about you? What mesmerizes you in a partner? What qualities in a match pique your interest and make you want even more? If you don’t already know, then consider the question and ponder its answer. Whatever it is, I wish you luck in finding it if you haven’t already. In a future post, we’ll address discerning your relationship values. Good luck out there!