A Business of Fashion Op-Ed that was published yesterday, titled "Unmasking Margiela", alludes to last week’s uncovering of the storied label’s head designer, Matthieu Blazy. First discovered by Suzy Menkes backstage at the brand’s Spring-Summer 2015 show, the story quickly spread across the blogosphere. The news made waves because ever since Martin Margiela launched his label in 1989, he and everyone who designs for it had been not just camera shy, but practically non-existent. Before last week, we didn’t know these people’s names, let alone have access to their Instagram accounts and Linkedin profiles. We assumed they simply didn’t have them, and maybe that they never left the Margiela lair. It felt like one of those "ignorance is bliss" moments. We kind of didn’t want to know.
That’s because, as the BoF piece notes, this anonymity is what has made Margiela such a powerful brand in the modern, over-sharing era. It’s refreshing when you don’t get bombarded with Twitter promotions masquerading as half-witted, cutesy jokes. It’s nice when we don’t have to treat a brand’s head designer like a celebrity. Most of all, it’s comforting to know that when we’re shopping, we’re buying into a brand and into the clothes themselves. We’re not merely being sold on the so-called "personality" of a creative director we think we know because we saw what they ate for breakfast on Instagram last week.
But the Op-Ed misses the point when it makes the case that this anonymity is potentially lucrative for new, unestablished brands; that it can be bottled up and sold back to consumers when they haven’t earned that respect. See, the thing about anonymity and mystery, say, with the fact that there is really only one photo of Martin Margiela that exists online, is that it takes time and patience to build an audience for it. Furthermore, it can’t be faked. Like Larry David once said, "You are either anonymous or you’re not." While Larry said if he knew he could be anonymous and tell everyone anyway, that he would have gladly taken that option, the same can’t be true of fashion brands in today’s day and age. Trying to play both sides at once will come across as forced and downright corny. BoF grossly mistakes Sia’s choice to put a bag over her own head on the cover of Billboard as a successful example of subverting one’s own image or moving "backwards into the shadows". She’s shown her face enough (before and after the cover shoot) to completely negate any mystery. It’s more of a PR stunt than anything.
With Maison Martin Margiela, we’re talking about a brand that is fully committed to the anonymous way of life, and not as a PR stunt. Even in their office, each employee wears a white lab coat to cover up their personal style choices. They still use a fucking fax machine and send hand-written notes to communicate with press. It’s been part of their DNA for so long and we loved it because it was different. With that total anonymity now sort of gone, it actually does feel like a real blow knowing who their head designer is—it takes their most unique quality away. And though his accounts are now deleted, it makes us wonder: If the head designer didn’t believe in the brand’s values, how could we?