The very same Tom Ford essence is much more forcefully invoked by Demna Gvasalia. He even stages the most Tom Ford thing he can think of - Kate Moss in a Gucci thong under a spotlight. Yet it somehow feels antithetical to Ford. Why is it that in the hands of Gvasalia the same essence ends up either distorted to absurdity or completely diluted?
Perhaps because it is too* Ford. Demna’s references to have been so on-the-nose and frequent that they become pastiches of Ford rather than reinterpretations or homages. However, one should not assume that this wasn’t Demna’s goal to begin with. Whilst Ackermann has been tasked with honouring Tom Ford, Demna Gvasalia has been tasked with reviving the house of Gucci, which, as Ford himself knows very well, firstly means generating a lot of attention.
by Noelle Vlasov
So does sex still sell?
Sex will always sell, rather mimetic of the act itself, it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve had it or how it was, you‘ll just want to have it again. Asking if sex still sells is like asking if food still sells.The idea that Gen Z ‘isn't having sex’ compared to previous generations, whether accurate or not, has nothing to do with the selling of sex. Buying sex doesn’t entail actually having it. We are much more likely to buy dreams and fantasies rather than realities.
Clashes have worked time and time again, yet the specific moments in time are also of crucial relevance. A woman wearing a suit today can be sexy depending on the woman and the suit, but would it sell or garner as much attention as it did in the past? Surely not as much as Marlene Dietrich in the 30s, or YSL’s ‘Le Smoking’ in 1966. Because a woman wearing a suit in the past was inherently incomprehensible and charming, yet after decades of normalising women wearing menswear, the effect has been diluted. Similarly, being a Hedi boy in 2001 was much more riveting than it is now, because their skinny bodies and slim-fit garments were a Bowie-esque rebellion against the conventional masculinity of the time. But today we find ourselves in a world where biblical skinny man Timothee Chalamet playing a gay man established a surprising status as a women’s heartthrob a few years back. Today, malnourished and usually effeminate men in skinny waxed jeans are not a rare sighting. They are the main element in most menswear shows, and the core pillars of most scenes.
And perhaps it is. Perhaps some brands such as Victoria’s Secret should stop acting as if it’s the late 2010s, and return to the sort of shows and products most of their audience wants from them. Perhaps this would even now be perceived as refreshing.
Madonna has recently said in an interview by Mel Ottenberg that she does not want to be naked anymore, because now, everybody's naked. Effectively selling sex has almost always had shock value at its core. A rebellion or confusion that results in intrigue. It follows that it becomes harder to sell when the obvious rebellions are now common sights. That doesn’t mean sex can’t still sell, but it now needs more thought and layers needs layers it usually did not previously need.
It seems that recently, enwrapping such a primal and messy act into layers of intellectualism or minimalism have worked much better. WHY?
Times have changed so much that recently some brands have been steering towards buff, straight looking men(sort of), or conventionally attractive women dressed in conventionally ‘sexy’ clothing, in hopes that this will now be perceived as going against the grain in today’s context. Whilst this could ironically be considered refreshing, or at this point even nostalgic, whether or not it can last as intriguing for audiences remains to be determined. What does seem to have an impact currently is enwrapping something so messy into something polished. The transformation of the most primal act into something intellectual and controlled.
What does it mean to be sexy?
What most people seem to either consciously or subconsciously do when they want to ‘be sexy’ is mimic or evoke what they look like while they’re actually having sex. Showing more skin, messing up their eyeliner and hair. There is also a sort of morning-after reinactment, where many think that just throwing anything on, signifying less effort, will be sexier. And all these things could make you sexy, but they could also make you the opposite.
Because the rather confusing fact is that being sexy has very little to do with sex. One main trait they do seem to share, however, is honesty. The best sex you have will be the most honest. Similarly, the sexiest you’ll be most likely to be when you’re, for lack of another phrase- being true to yourself. Sexiness is more something that emerges on a particular wearer. It only exists in relation to a specific person. There is no one size fits all.
They said Marilyn Monroe could wear a potato sack and still be sexy so she was then shot in a potato sack and she was still sexy. But we cannot say a potato sack is sexy, it’s just her wearing it. By the same token, we cannot really say that there is such as thing as a ‘sexy dress’, the way most would think of a Gianni Versace or a Herve Leger. What these are is body-hugging and skin-revealing, and whilst some do look sexy in them, others look vulgar or simply just clash with the garment.
There are a few main identifiable conflicts that sexiness really operates within: the ratios of masculine and feminine, of angel and devil, and of effortlessness and deliberate intention.
Usually, we need to be able to identify these conflicts within something or someone, in order for it to be sexy in a timeless manner. What sparks interest is something we cannot place. The sexiest people are people we cannot understand.
Not too feminine, not too masculine. Not too innocent, but also never coming across too strong. Not too sweet, not too devilish or vulgar. It’s a balance that seems hard to achieve, but it really isn’t.
It’s impossible to achieve.
The unfortunate thing about it is that it’s not really a thing one achieves but rather a quality that seems to develop by itself. It’s unlearnable and unteachable.
Yet there once was a man who could naturally balance all of these traits effortlessly, so much so that right now, he could be considered the most present, absent designer within fashion. A name almost synonymous with sex, Tom Ford’s essence was also not exempt from conflicts. It was hot and cold. It lured us in with promises of sex, often unfulfilled, signalling a level of power and control. Of both desirability and intimidation.
It is this essence that Haider Ackermann is tasked with honouring at Tom’s namesake brand, which he has been doing exceedingly well. Manipulating it so uniquely that there are barely any very obvious references to Tom Ford’s pieces.
The reason Ackermann’s sexiness is so particular is not just because of its evident androgyny. As opposed to the context of years ago, androgyny now isn’t going against the grain. Androgyny generally is the grain. The trait that gives it a rebellious edge is arguably how polished it is. We rarely see depictions of sexy be this polished and deliberate today, perhaps only in a more youthful manner at Nicolas Di Felice’s Couregges. Ackerman actually often draws more from the sort of sexiness evoked by something such as a black patent leather Louboutin shoe. Luxurious and put together, but with Ackermann adding a much more cinematic touch and androgynous edge.
Gvasalia should not really be perceived as actually attempting to sell us sex. He is simply attempting to sell. And with the same ironies that have defined him. It just so happens that now his irony has mainly been revolving around the concept of sex, inspired by Ford’s reign. The Gucci adverts shown in the latest Times Square show perfectly demonstrate Demna’s actual vision. Whether it’s about a Gucci car, Gucci elixir or Gucci sex, what he is doing is creating a field of different free-floating signs and concepts whose value lies precisely in their recognisability and consumability. Crucially, they are all, more or less, parodies.
With his new Gucci archetypes, customers are invited not to invent and discover themselves, but to identify with and purchase regurgitations of already familiar personas. Whether it’s masculinity, oblivious logo-worship, or general kitsch and tastelessness in any form, these are all presented in exaggerated forms. Intended as satire for certain viewers, while simultaneously acting as a fully consumable style ideal for others. His looks have strikingly different layers of interpretation for each category that perceives them and some may percieve this as a risk of his social critiques collapsing onto themselves. Yet it is also a usually successful ability he has been mastering for years.
May 2026
In fashion, there is always an Enfant Terrible, an ever-present title which moves from one designer to another every few years. One of the earliest and most iconic ones being Jean Paul Gaultier. And it is at his namesake brand where the current Enfant terrible, Duran Lantik, also resides.
Lantik’s JPG debut has tapped into a sense of the grotesque, but controlled. It’s always simplified and does not feel truly excessive, as well as handled with surprising playfulness and bright tones. Yet his debut has resulted in some of the most divisive work of recent years, which should instantly speak to his level of impact, as well as his understanding of selling sex and shock value. He has managed to create something off-putting, yet we cannot look away. A conflict that can, in its very own way, exude sexiness.
