Jean Paul, what have you seen of this collection so far?

JPG: Absolutely nothing. Even though we’re working on something for Madonna, I go up there and announce I don’t want to see anything [yet]! But what I can say is that I had seen Julien’s work for Paco Rabanne on Mademoiselle Agnès’s TV show awhile back, and I remember seeing things that were very Paco Rabanne, but also things that were very different and interesting. I remember one knitted coat with shearling. It was really beautiful and I said to myself, voilà. And I find what you’ve done lately for Paco Rabanne is really very good—like that dress in chainmail with leather draping. The mix takes Paco somewhere new while remaining very on-message. Creatively, it’s exciting to see the mixing and modernizing of that universe. You’re not afraid of taking risks to make things that are strong and beautiful.

This is the house’s fifth couture collaboration, and the first from the Puig stable. How was that decision made?

JPG: It was really easy. It was a logical choice, given the caliber of Julien’s work for Paco Rabanne and given his own design signature. I have complete freedom to choose whomever I wish, so it wasn’t in any way imposed by the group. Even if I’ve stepped back, I still love fashion so it’s a personal pleasure for me [to invite a guest designer] and it flatters my ego that a talented designer would agree to take what I’ve done and make it his own. I never wanted to be copied, and it’s important to have [a designer] who’s not “inspired” by 36 other people. It has to be someone who brings something to the conversation. He can do neo-Paco Rabanne, so he can perfectly well do neo-Gaultier.

What collections inspired you most, Julien?

JD: I love the ideas of morphing that Jean Paul worked with over the years: a piece that starts out as one thing and then transforms into something else. There’s also the notion of making everyday things fantastical, which I find very poetic. We’ve done embroideries that pick up on trompe l’oeil but also include the idea of movement—it’s a reinterpretation of JPG codes, but using other techniques. There’s a concept of jumpsuits with integrated shoes and lace that’s like a second skin; there’s transparent and vintage lingerie borrowed from the 19th century, and the idea of ’50s-era déshabillés. The collection with Christine Bergstrom in a sequined second-skin Botticelli [informs] gown in transparent tulle embroidered with guipure, which goes back to [Jean Paul’s] work with nudity and the body.

Some embroideries have been reworked, revisited, and used in different ways. I like the idea of giving an ‘old soul’ new life, so I sourced vintage lace from a woman named Sarah at the puces, because I find it beautiful to be able to offer the client different kinds of 20th century lace that might go with her complexion. There’s also the idea of giving old jeans a new life in a way that’s very couture. And we found a beautiful grain de poudre and tennis stripes among the house’s deadstock.

In terms of specific collections—you mentioned the rabbi collection.

JPG: That collection came to me when I visited the Jewish quarter in London, and I was struck by this community and the power of the way they dress.

JD: For me, there’s this idea of kinds of clothes, allures, and attitudes that are potentially part of a dress code, but what happens is that they are transformed. The question is how to take an element and, with all the good intentions in the world, draw attention to it and say “look how beautiful this is.”

JPG: That said, I’m not sure you could do something like that today.

JD: I’ve always considered that when you transform something and keep just a line, or an element, it’s a rather virtuous exercise. If you take a Hawaiian raffia skirt and put it with a lei, that brings nothing new to fashion. But if a designer’s work is really well done, a mix of genres and codes creates a new entity, and a new identity. If you approach that with respect, it’s super interesting. I think it’s important to continue exploring codes and reapplying them in a way that creates something new. You have to have confidence in your own respect and the work you put into it, and that’s how I see the rabbi collection, for example.

Is there an element of nostalgia at work here?

JD: Not for me, because the clothes [in the archive] are so alive. For me personally, nostalgia is about an emotion that’s aroused by seeing something again. For me, it’s more about discovering, for example, a dress in this kind of draped, crushed silk velvet that used to be used for hats, but it’s not being produced anymore, which is when you say “wow—there she is.” Those moments are somewhat sacred, but it’s not about nostalgia.

Did you work with muses in mind?

JD: It was more about expressing a community. [To JPG] To me, it’s the people around you who really inspire you, so I keep that in mind without really thinking about anyone in particular.

JPG: That’s exactly it. The people who inspired me caught my attention for the way they were through their clothes. It’s sociology, in the end.

JD: Fantasist sociology.

JPG: There’s always the notion of pleasure and amusement. You can talk about clothes—that’s how we express ourselves as designers—and really say something.

JD: The idea of pleasure is important, because in your work no one had expressed ideas of provocation and irony in that way before. There’s something innocent and generous about that.

JPG: It comes from reality: it’s always about people you see or meet, or someone who inspires you with an attitude.

JD: It can be the way a girl dances at a party, for example. Someone with charisma and attitude can lead you to creating completely new characters. That’s what’s so interesting about what we do, aside from the finality of designing a piece.

JPG: It can be as simple as the way a girl puts her hands in her pockets.

Julien, were you consciously taking currents like fluidity, body positivity or “naked dressing” into account?

JD: I like it most when inspiration happens as naturally as possible, and I love the idea of freedom in general. I’m an optimist by nature, so when I see a whole generation that doesn’t sit around wondering whether they want to look “more like a boy” or “more like a girl”—we’re not even talking about androgyny anymore, we’ve moved beyond that. This new generation has exploded the old way of thinking beyond what I would have thought possible. Now, freedom of expression is very pure—you can be whatever you want, and I find that really beautiful. Freedom without limits inspires me. It gives me a lot of hope for the future. That freedom and diversity of expression must be gratifying for you Jean Paul, since you pioneered that on the runway.

JPG: I really think it’s always about someone else, about seeing someone who’s inspiring and completely of a moment. I think that’s how we’re made: we see something, and then we re-offer what we’ve seen. It’s a little like giving directions.

JD: Yes, like interpreters or translators. It’s like a culture. Like we said about characters and clothing that speaks—there’s all the atelier’s work, the sophistication of it, the way you approach a silhouette. We are here to look at the clothes; [the runway] shouldn’t become an amusement park, because then you can’t see as far. This is about the clothes, a love of clothes that are meant to be really seen and worn and the clients who will wear them, and who buy them the same way they would a piece of art. Yes, it’s couture, but it’s also a reality.