/fa/ - Fashion

>>7874389
re: margiela i said
>margiela STATED that he did not appear to the press or take photographs because he wanted to divorce the cerator from the creation
>but at the same time he didn't show his face for the same reason some celebrity designer like thom browne does show his - it contributes to the brand image and is, in some way, marketing. perhaps not in the traditional sense but whatever.
it wasn't just repeating what you said
what you said is margiela's purported reasoning behind why he didn't show his face and really engage the press: what you neglected is the second, part which i said. that's the purported reasoning, which may be somewhat true, but it's also about adding mystique to the brand, it differentiates itself from the competition. margiela was still the figurehead of the company, he was the name, and he was seen as the creative force behind the label, even if he wasn't in reality. he never really had the anonymity say walmart or uniqlo did. or muji, to use a better example. yes i know that some creators for muji have divulged their identity, yohji included, but it was never as much of an issue and well after they had left the brand, for the most part. didn't influence people's perception of muji as a brand

>>7874215
but maybe you are correct about the marketing thing, i will readily admit i am drawing from other people's conclusions, and I'm not lucky enough to have talked to many people who have had or personally know people who have had contact with paul, save for one person.
so i totally understand why you say you're satisfied with your opinion.

either way i'd be interested in reading the (only existing) full interview, which i know is on your harddrive. so if you're feeling particularly generous, i'd appreciate you inboxing me it, or otherwise, my email is in the field

best regards!