JF: When you see the clothes at a fashion show, sometimes they're more extreme than what you see in the store, right?
FG: Well, not always at Gucci. I believe what we are showing on the catwalk needs to be in the stores. The big stores like in New York or London or Paris, the main flagships, they always have the entire collection–even the extreme pieces. There are people who are waiting for the extreme pieces from the fashion show. We are not the kind of company that thinks, Okay, I'll do something for the runway, and I'll make an entire new collection to sell.
JF: What is the general thinking behind that? I'm wondering why someone would ever do extreme pieces [for the runway]. Does it define the show?
FG: I don't know; it's a different approach. I don't like to treat a piece of clothing like an object of art because I don't consider myself an artist. I'm a designer. My biggest satisfaction is always when I make something beautiful and well-done that I can see on a real man or woman–not only in the glossy magazines.
JF: You said you don't consider yourself an artist?
FG: To me, art is not something that after six months you change. That's why I say I'm not an artist. I need to try to sell every single collection to make it a success.
JF: I'm interested in that because in film, you think of the director as a kind of artist. But if you're directing a movie, especially if it's very expensive, you have something of a responsibility to make the money back for that studio. You're working with a similar model. There's always been a tension between a director, who wants his own vision, and the studio, which might think, "Well, that vision might not appeal to everyone. We want more of a general appeal."