This is a question I sometimes like to ask myself if I come across a particularly difficult design problem. The answer is always, undoubtably, "something amazing".
I was lucky enough to visit to the Maison Martin Margiela '20' exhibition in Somerset House a couple of weeks ago. As an exhibition I was really struck at how it completely and utterly reflected the foundations of the brand. It was organised around sections devoted to trompe l'oeil, paint, destruction, silhouette and re-invention, all of which are signature design tools of the house. However, these elements also controlled the way the pieces were exhibited- canvas sheets with large empty hallways printed on them provided a doorway for visitors, who walked through to the see the real hallway and the exhibits. Another room was strewn with white confetti and large furniture draped in white cotton which faced three walls covered in television screens, all different sizes, shapes and from different eras. In the middle of the next room are some leftover bags of confetti.
The most fashionable caravan I've ever seen.
Garments from the XXXL collection, including the mannequin used in their development.
XXXL Accessories.
Plans for the development of each Margiela store- paint chips, interior sketches and notes.
It comes across as a mis-matched celebration of imperfection which Margiela has become known for. Just as Margiela rejects the impenetrability of the "fashion house" and brings the construction and flaws of a garment to the fore, the exhibition is self-referencing (there is a life-size foam cut-out of everyone involved in it's creation) and highlights the behind-the-scenes of the house. So instead of it being an exhibition about Maison Martin Margiela, you get the feeling that they've constructed a part of the Maison in London and we're just allowed to wander through it for a while. Which is exactly how it should be.
