Cooking Sections: It’s a term we coined in 2015 to think of different systems and how to use food to understand them. We use food to understand those systems and how they are adapting to the new seasons of the climate crisis. It starts from the idea that the seasons that we grew up with have become or are becoming more and more obsolete. For example, when you go to the supermarket, you find pretty much anything all year round because of these standardized and intensive ways of producing food. So we started thinking about what it would mean to eat according to the new seasons that are being generated by humans because of the industrialization of the world. Like a season of drought or a season of polluted oceans or a season of flash floods. And that’s when we started thinking of these possible ingredients, variations that on the one hand are becoming more common in places they were not before, but at the same time also possible scenarios we can imagine to address them.

CS: Well, I think for us, more than the convivial aspect – which is also important for us – it is more about how to think of food as an infrastructure, especially thinking about systemic change at the levels of governance as well as policy-making and how to bring different allies into these struggles towards food justice. And to do that, we like to operate at different levels. Of course, people get together to eat and it’s very important. But even if that sometimes becomes part of our work, the focus is more on infrastructural change that doesn’t stay at the level of the individual. Too often, the responsibility of a malfunctioning of a system is put on people’s individual habits instead of thinking more systemically. For example, why are food corporations allowed to use certain pesticides and then make people pay three times more in the supermarket for food that doesn’t have those chemicals or poison? We want to put more emphasis on those layers, not only on the conviviality of people getting together and eating nice food.

CS: It has also been made polarized, right? People grew up with it for centuries and it was something very embedded in everyday life. But because of the industrialization of food, especially after the Second World War, more and more people have become disconnected from food and food has become more disconnected from landscapes and the natural seasons because of different so-called technological modernizations. But that has also created a whole series of problems. And that’s where we think this divide appeared. It has become really politicized and, actually, should be even more politicized because it’s a real struggle. Food production is now driven by corporate profit, like many other extractive industries in the world. There is that gap that needs to be bridged. And it’s not easy.

CS: For us, it’s important to use cultural platforms to, on the one hand, raise awareness about these connections, while it is also very important to imagine a new, possible future. We need to start thinking about how we can end some of these extractive practices or toxic ways of farming. And to do that, we need to imagine better worlds. Which is what we try to do in our work, to pick some of these cases or stories from our research and then amplify them. For instance, one particular case is the whole body of work around farmed salmon and the synthetic colors that are used to pigment the flesh of the fish. The fish are grown in intensive farms underwater and because of deficiencies in their industrialized diet, their flesh doesn’t turn pink, the way people expect them to look. So, artificial coloring is used to compensate for it. In this particular case, we use the illusion of color to expose and reveal how the production of farmed fish creates serious new problems. It is not just an aesthetic problem in terms of color, but that fake color that is illustrative of the problem with the entire system.

CS: Definitely. But we first need to understand that we’ve been forced to disconnect. Because people were not disconnected that long ago. We need to think of the externalities. In order to make food affordable and to feed the world, some of these very intensive and toxic practices have been heavily subsidized by governments without thinking of the long-term future of the soil or the long-term future of our bodies. [Our bodies] are becoming increasingly infertile because of exposure to some of the pesticides that are used in to lower the costs of the production of food. So, at what cost does cheap food actually come, at what cost to the environment, at what cost to our bodies? At the moment, cheap food is cheap because of these subsidies to corporate profit-oriented enterprises, but also because it doesn’t take into account the long-term effects and who is doing what with those externalities. If you were to include the price of cleaning the waterways from pesticides, would it be that cheap then? The problem is that those costs are not included in the price of food. For us, it’s about making these connections visible. It’s not people deciding to disconnect from food, it is enterprises that have been severing those connections.

CS: Yes, of course. There are a lot of farmers that are doing incredible work in many parts of the world, who try to resist those corporate structures and still take care of the land and the soil for future generations. And there’s a lot of initiatives. I think the problem sometimes is that they feel that society demands a lot from them in terms of ecology, but no one is really supporting them in the way that some of these more industrialized food production systems are subsidized. So, on the one hand, they have to bear the risks of failure because sometimes the weather doesn’t help, especially if you don’t use chemicals to mitigate. And, on the other hand, it’s a social responsibility they feel that people demand from them. That is a huge psychological load to carry. There needs to be more support for long-term visions and for food production that takes care of both humans and the soil.

CS: Demanding more infrastructural change. Governments should support, for instance, open source seeds without copyright or patents by multinational corporations so that farmers don’t need to pay for seeds that are climate resilient. We need to have open source seeds for farmers so they can decide on their future and what they want to grow without paying because that’s how humanity has always been. Another infrastructural change we need to demand from government: Think of when we go to the supermarket. We are put in a personal quandary and a financial bind, where we have to choose if we want to pay three times more not to be poisoned, instead of the government just banning these pesticides from the start. These kinds of choices are then up to people’s habits and the information they have instead of governments and corporations taking the responsibility.

CS: Exactly.

CS: It’s hard to say… We just believe in the work we are interested in and it doesn’t have to do with being more or less common. We love allies. We’d like to have more allies and people do it more at work. But yeah, there are many issues in the world and each one focuses inwards.

CS: We’ve been working a lot within the climate framework and thinking about the future seasons. For instance, in a season of drought and there is a lack of water or water scarcity, let’s think of more drought-resistant crops. Or if there is a season of soil exhaustion because so many chemicals have been applied that the soil is dead, what kinds of rotation of crops can nourish the soil in the same way that we nourish our bodies? These are the kinds of ingredients we try to find, but we also look at ways of growing them that support ecological systems, not just addressing the ingredients themselves.

CS: We need to familiarize ourselves with the local plants that are available. For example, in the south of Italy, there are all of these wild plants, nut trees and varieties of vegetables that don’t require irrigation. So, on the one hand, familiarize ourselves with them, and then create a demand.

CS: Again, that depends on where you live and where you are. For example, on the Isle of Skye in Scotland, where we did the project on farmed salmon, we’ve been working a lot with alternative aquaculture, mainly oysters, mussels and seaweeds that contribute to oxygenated water as they grow. Seaweed, for instance, is an ingredient that in Scotland had been used for generations but has been forgotten, especially since industrialized food production started after the Second World War. We look at how to recover some of these cultural legacies for the sake of history, but also as foods for the future. They are incredible sources of protein and many other compounds that our bodies need, but have been disregarded. So, it is crucial to reconnect with these ingredients, but it all depends on where you live and what the main issue at stake is. For example, if you live on the coast and you have fish farms nearby, how can you transition to alternative aquaculture? If you’re in an area that is experiencing increasing drought, how can you grow vegetables that do not require irrigation? And so on.

CS: What we can do is to ask questions, ask yourself why is this available? Why is this not available? It’s a lot about information and talking to people and thinking. For example, if you are in a dry environment affected by drought, look at why there are not so many ingredients that respond to drought. Because the moment you start pulling the thread and tracing it, then you understand all the actors that are involved, and then you can demand change. It’s not easy to do it on an individual level. But, we have to because it’s our everyday life and we need to constantly make good choices. And there is a lot of work to be done on a wider, infrastructure level.

Christopher Hartmann: The initial starting point was the first lockdown in 2020. My previous work was very figure-heavy, about flesh and skin. All my work is staged to a certain degree, I take photographs before I paint. During the lockdown, I wasn’t able or allowed to take images of people, that’s when I became more interested in clothes and suggesting a certain presence through the absence of figures. I was staring at a pile of clothes at home and noticed the movement of the fabrics and impression of the body.

The first room in my exhibition is just empty bed sheets, empty beds — what I am most interested in is the absence of the body, to suggest with an imprint of a body that a body was there. With the fabrics, it creates a different type or relationship between the paintings and the viewer. Through the fabrics and textiles, the viewer can interpret the motif I am portraying through their own experience.

I am a controlled messy person. Not to reinforce stereotypes, but I’m a typical Capricorn, and on top of that I am German — always in control. My studio can get messy sometimes, but I have it under control. At a certain point, I have to clean. I also don’t mind mess, as long as it is my mess and I have some kind of overview of it, but if it is somebody else’s mess, I do get a bit crazy about it.

The pile of clothes I paint are very staged and composed – I spend hours on them. Some of my scenes are more natural states, but they exist in a place between staged and natural. Very often, a still life starts with me seeing something on the floor or on the couch. I then take a few pictures and start to remove or add something to make an interesting composition. I am aware that the end goal is painting.

As a man, it feels like the most authentic thing I can do: paint men and show things from my perspective. If you had asked me three or four years ago, I would have told you that my work is a reflection of my belief that there aren’t any fixed ideas of masculinity, but in 2023, I don’t think so much about gender norms.

There is a certain vulnerability and tenderness to the paintings, which is in contrast to a traditional sense of masculinity — but it’s not a groundbreaking new idea. For me, tenderness, vulnerability and masculinity go hand in hand. These aspects are intrinsically human, regardless of gender, sex or whatever. It is the way I am and how I relate to people in my life.

Obviously, I can’t separate myself from my environment. I grew up in Bavaria, in an ultra-Catholic environment, so I am aware of the traditional view of masculinity. But maybe it is tied to leaving home. Sometimes I wonder if I am in a bubble, living in London, in the art world, thinking that people are very openminded and less fixated on certain ideas.

Five years ago, I was pushing ideas of sexuality and masculinity. But now, my work has become a bit more supple and tender. Maybe this also has to do with age. There is something about the subtleness that I find more interesting, showing more, but being less explicit.

My most recent work in LA was about longing and belonging and exploring the idea of home. I had just moved into a new flat in London and the starting point of that was me just staring into an empty bed. The idea of starting over was heartbreaking. I was staring at the bed and thinking about where you sleep at night and where you define your home.

Now, I am much more interested in abstraction. Instead of painting a person who looks nostalgic or painting a fleshy intimate scene, I am interested in depicting atmospheres that express nostalgia or show an intimate state of mind.

I am interested in that duality — absence points towards a presence and a presence points towards an absence. Each provokes something different in the viewer. You can very much relate to an empty bed, and it can be very confronting, but two figures are much more explicit, much more specific, and about interpretations of the poses and action. But I like telling stories across this juxtaposition.

Carlo Rovelli: The sense of freedom, liberty, possibility of taking my life in my hands, and not being constrained by what everybody else thinks or expects from me, has been the best experience and the legacy those years left with me.

CR: It did not really spark my interest in physics. Rather, it left me with a large number of unsolved and puzzling questions in my mind. If the perception of reality can be altered so easily, how do we really trust our usual perception? It left me with a sense that reality could perhaps be quite different from what our standard intuition suggests, and with a great curiosity to learn more.

CR: It makes materialism less naive. The world is not just a bunch of little stones bumping against each other. It is formed by more subtle structures, relations and interactions. This is not a step back from materialism to idealism or spiritualism. It is a step forward in understanding the physical nature of reality.

CR: 100 years after Copernicus wrote his book, with the idea that the Earth spins, this idea was still unconceivable and dramatically counterintuitive for almost everybody. It takes time to digest the deep, new things we learn about reality. In addition, the specialists, the scientists themselves, are not yet in real agreement about how to best think about the new discovery. No surprise then if everybody else is confused as well. My book Helgoland is entirely on this issue.

CR: The thesis developed in the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, and which is described in Helgoland, is that we may better understand the world as a network of interacting processes rather than a collection of entities, or “things.” This means that entities can only be understood from the way they interact, and as evolving in time; entities in isolation do not make sense.

CR: It is not logic that is challenged by quantum phenomena. It is common sense. What is challenged is the normal view of reality made by things that have their properties. A stone is a piece of rock that is somewhere, has a weight, a velocity if it moves, its own color, and so on. This intuitive view of reality is only an approximation. A stone is a very complicated phenomenon: It is a momentary coming together of configurations of quantum fields… It looks static for the same reason the Earth looks like a boring, static blue rock when seen from the moon.

CR: I do not think that the fear that the development of AI without control may lead to the end of humanity is justified. That an AI machine launches a nuclear war is far more unlikely than a human being launching nuclear weapons (they have already done so). I have a much higher level of distrust in humans than in AI. Nobody is going to give much power to AI at present, and AI is not going to grasp power by itself. That is science fiction. Have you tried to use the chat bots? They are plainly stupid. They are better than humans in some specific tasks, but so are washing machines. The risk is of human stupidity, not artificial intelligence.

CR: In my opinion, definitely quantum gravity. The problem of making sense of the quantum property of space itself and time itself. We have tentative theories that do this: The most developed is called loop quantum gravity, but we are not sure if they are right, because they are incomplete and we have not been able to test them.

CR: I do not think that there is a specific “quantum thinking.” Rather, I think that quantum mechanics helps us to see the limits of certain notions or ideas that we take for granted. For instance, the idea that the best way to think about the world is always to think in terms of “objects,” or “things.” Often, relations come before things.

CR: Of course. It is simple to see: The best science and the best philosophy of the past have come from people in the two disciplines that were listening to one another.

CR: We already think in terms of relations very often. We know that a human being, a biological species, a chemical element are determined and defined by how they interact with whatever is around.

CR: What I call “tribal thinking” is unfortunately a very common way of thinking today. It is the mistake that we make when we think that our best interest is for our group to prevail. We fail to see that our best interest is for our group to better and more effectively collaborate, to find common ground to find compromises, and search for the win-win solution. Sometimes, this mistake has dramatic consequences. Every war is the result of this stupidity happening on both sides.

CR: The public debate has always been contaminated by alternative facts. When I was younger, during the height of the Cold War, the world was split in two opposite narratives, each considering the other “alternative facts.” I had the privilege of growing up in a country where both were strong, and got a bit vaccinated against the absurdities of both. At the times of the American Revolution, the Indian Wars, or the French Revolution, it was the same, I think. For sure, nowadays it is the same: People live in their own narratives, on each side of the debates, everybody deeply convinced to have truth and justice on their side. I do not think that quantum theory has anything to do with that. Truth is complicated, never easy. We get closer to it, with time, humility, listening to our enemies, and being honest with ourselves. We are never at any final truth, but sincere debates do end up clarifying who is right and who is wrong, on many topics. So, often reasonable people end up agreeing. This is how the entire immense body of knowledge on which our civilization flourishes was slowly built, along the millennia.

CR: To protect the environment, it suffices to be reasonable, which we are not. We do not need quantum thinking. We need not to be bamboozled by the special interests that resist implementing the changes we need. And, again, we need to invest resources in the common problems of humankind, rather than trying to prevail upon one another.

CR: I think that it is an interesting possibility, but there is too much hype around it. I doubt all the promises will be kept.

CR: I am afraid that is asking too much from quantum physics. We have a chance of becoming better human beings by stopping being predators as we are at the international level towards one another. Quantum physics has nothing to offer. It is up to us to be reasonable. A bit wiser than what we are.

CR: The coming war between the US and China. Seems that the US is desperately trying to go into it.

CR: The moment in which the people in power will realize that their task is not to make one country or one system prevail. It is to build a peaceful and collaborative world, and address the common problems of humankind: the ecological crises, extreme poverty, the dramatic economical inequalities, diseases…

CR: I appreciate your optimism. Maybe because I am older, I see people demonizing our countries, spending much more on the military, preparing for war. Forgetting the good “no more war” ideal of the past. I hope to be wrong and that you are right.

CR: There certainly was when quantum theory was conceived. It was conceived by a group of very young people, in their twenties, full of courage, irreverence and freedom. Now, quantum theory is an old lady, it is 98 years old.

CR: Yes, definitely. We should teach the history of science. To see how painfully we came to know the little we know. We should also teach history from the perspectives of others. It is astonishing how each country teaches its students a version of history totally different from the other countries. So, everybody ends up believing they are in the only reasonable place on the planet. And we do not understand each other anymore. And we kill one another, as we are doing routinely.

CR: It certainly may give us a sense that the world may well be stranger than we thought. And quantum theory for sure tells us that the world is indeed stranger than we thought.

CR: Nature is quantum. This is a fact. Like the fact that the Earth is spinning. It will be quantum in the future, it is quantum now, and it was quantum in the past. We have just learned this, and it is in this sense that we have entered a quantum world.

Fatima (F): I am working on a Fatima Njai album. This picture entails music production, songwriting, and art, to be specific (with great collaborations). In addition, cultural event production falls into my creative repertoire and I work on several cultural projects that are related to art, fashion, and music.

Jerome Sydenham (JS): I am always working on music. The flavors range from afro vibes to the complete house spectrum and deep techno. I am also very focused on my afromatic art, fashion, and music project that will be based in Berlin, Paris, and Tokyo. These projects are my current priority at the moment and I will use Berlin as my base of operations.

F: Many moments in life shaped me. One key moment is my friend Julie Snoek, who motivated me at 18 to pursue singing and organized a spot as a singer for me in a cover band. That set the milestone to enter my personal and professional journey into the music business. Later, at 24, my friend Phillip Majer introduced me to electronic music production. I went on to complete my studies in Fine Arts at Christina Kubisch with a diploma in Sound Art and Mixed Media. Collaborative works and my love for street music gave me invaluable lessons in my personal and spiritual evolution. All of this led to a major key moment (where things became full circle) when I started to work with Jerome Sydenham. He became my biggest teacher and mentor in music production, business, and art. Keeping it real, the story continues.

JS: My early childhood in Nigeria was critical in my development regarding appreciation of music. My professional background at East West Records and Atlantic Records in New York City gave birth to my DJ and production career which led to the formation of Ibadan Records and other imprints. The journey continues…

F: I am a lover of all genres. I love music.

JS: Primarily Fela Kuti and the Akpala music scene. I was blessed to be involved with the foundation years of house and techno music, also naturally hip hop and reggae Music. I do believe that I have a good understanding of most genres of music.

F: The cultural impact and identity of music. The consumption of music. Music was better when artists did not have to obey any imagery and were reflective of the issues of the world.

JS: Music always evolves. I guess the improvement of the home studio is the most significant difference and of course the use of AI in music production.

F: The future is bright as always. I see more real instruments coming back, songs and innovative sounds. I love the fact how accessible all music became to people. I am wondering about the future of streaming and if it actually has value in the long run. I see a lot of classics come back, a lot of new fusions of old and new. I believe the only way to keep music sustainable is to carry all the greatness of music from the past into the future and share it with the world until it is forgotten.

JS: As I said before, there is always movement in these genres and there is a lot more of it. I think you really have to dig to find the good stuff. Same thing applies to DJing. I find there are less dynamic DJs existing in the market. This always changes so I remain optimistic.

F: Jerome Sydenham from all people, 100%, because he is the most talented, genius producer in my opinion. He is also a great teacher, mentor, and at the same time, he is extremely creative in several fields of arts and production of music. I call him a “Walking Library”. Also, he has a great understanding of the ideas I have and always gives more fruit for thought or the one idea that will take the music to the next level. His hunger for music is just infectious. He is the producer who put sense into my ideas and helped me to shape it into real music. His openness to music of all kinds and almost childlike approach to combine sounds and new ideas is in itself always inspiring to me. Without Jerome Sydenham, the world would not hear and know about Fatima Njai, as he is the one who flipped the script in my career and is the biggest Fatima Njai supporter.

JS: Merlin Bobb and Sylvia Rhone on a corporate level, Fatima Njai, Joe Clausell, Kerri Chandler, Dennis Ferrer, and Ron Trent on a production level, to name a few. Robert Owens, Carl Craig, The Martinez Brothers, Seth Troxler, Function…and I could go on and on and on. So many great people.

F: No. The music always shows me the way.

JS: Nope, not really, except maybe for better lawyers and accountants.

Damiano von Erckert: I have my roots in nightlife and have been a DJ traveling worldwide for 15 years. For the past 4 or 5 years, I’ve been a resident at Robert Johnson in Frankfurt. Through my graphic design work for the club’s merchandise, the idea of creating my own label came to my mind. I was introduced to Tillmann Lauterbach through Sven Väth, a mutual friend. Tillmann had already worked as a designer for major brands and his own fashion label. I felt he was the person I had been searching for over the last 20 years to take this step. Together with Peter, the third founder, who used to run his own clubs, it’s a unique dynamic of three different generations. It taught me to trust the universe – that everything aligns and comes together at the right time. 

We enjoy playing with humor, embrace color and prints and take inspiration from the warehouse raves of the 90s, spontaneous raves in UK fields, and the parties of the early 2000s in Berlin and Frankfurt. Back then, there was a lot of craziness and kitsch. We want to step away from the darkness often associated with techno and, mistakenly, house music today. The Berghain dresscode of an entirely black outfit is amazing and we like it, but it’s not the only way to go. If you look at photo books about the old Ostgut, which later turned into Berghain, you’ll see that hardly anyone back then was dressed in black. After all, counterculture is about being challenged and inspired. Breaking away from monotony every now and then is essential – not only in nightlife. I once read a book called “The Disambiguation of the World“ about the phenomenon of pseudo-diversity. For example, in a supermarket, you might see dozens of chip bags in front of you. But it’s just an illusion of variety, at the end of the day, they are all just chips. The same thing happens with fashion and art when they are influenced by cancel culture or algorithms too much. Everything becomes flat. Why? Because brands and artists want to play it safe.

In the 90s, there was a much stronger spirit of revolution and optimism. People were curious about the future, and there was a great sense of community. Going out was about escaping everyday life for at least a few hours. That still happens today, but smartphones have changed a lot. Even in the club, they’re present and bring the everyday world with them. People are filming all the time, which often looks great on social media, but in reality, it takes away part of the magic.

Definitely! Rethinking consumerism also plays a role in our concept. Back in the days, people would go into stores and there would be these pyramids built from the newest products, creating desire. We want to bring that magic back, for example with the special packing of our products. When you connect the experience of shopping with all of your senses and positive emotions, a piece of clothing becomes more than just that – it’s like a friend in your wardrobe. That’s why we see ourselves more as an art object that also makes fashion.

David Roelen: My uncle’s piece of hash comes to mind. He was a hippie artist who lived in a commune and loved to smoke. Hash rocks were always lying around, and I could smell them as I walked by. I loved the mix of herbal, woody, and animalistic notes. It had such an aromatic quality, especially to me as a child.

It’s a value system. It’s not only about masculinity but about dissolving the borders between genders. I think of personality rather than gender when it comes to perfume. I’ve always envisioned a world where people interact free of fear and with respect. Perfume is one way to express this.

The design was shaped by necessity. When I started, I needed bottles that stood out and could be filled by hand. I also wanted something neutral. The flacon protects the liquid from sunlight and serves a clear function. For me, perfume doesn’t happen in a bottle, it happens when a person wears it.

People who share our values: they’re reflective, aware, respectful, and confident.

I’m not a “pro”, like, I didn’t formally study perfumery. I create olfactive concepts and work with master perfumers on their actualization.

But in this case, it’s pretty easy: Top notes diffuse quickly; they’re very present initially but fade soon after. The middle notes, where the top and base converge, build the perfume’s character. The base lasts until the end.

Imagine testing several commercial perfumes at a Duty Free Store—they all smell nice initially, but later, they often fade into sameness. These perfumes prioritize top notes to create an instant appeal, a strategy known as “Sniff n Buy” in the industry.

My approach for Roelen Perfumes, however, values top, heart, and base notes equally to create strong “personalities” and lasting impressions. For me, fragrance is an identity that unfolds over time—like truly getting to know someone.

I start with a name and concept, then explore base ingredients to see what resonates. I also create a briefing for my Perfumer (also called “Nose”) which can contain text, images, music, and video clips to convey what I want people to feel when they smell my perfumes. The Nose then creates variants, which I direct and we refine them iteratively until the scent feels right. This can take from weeks up to 9 months, per scent.

… to a feeling.

This concept hit me during research, discovering that 30% of all women buy men’s fragrances—a striking statistic, a third of all female customers! What?! Why does the industry cling to outdated ideas, perpetuating the notion of women as the “cute accessory” to successful men? This concept demanded transformation, and it had to become a fragrance. Associating certain ingredients with gender feels arbitrary—likely a marketing construct that, over time, became learned behavior: we associate specific scents with masculinity or femininity because of how our parents or grandparents smelled who were also brainwashed by the marketing teams.

The aim was to reinterpret everything typically considered masculine—shaving foam, lavender, herbal notes like sage or chamomile, tobacco, leather jackets, or car seats—by blending it with a gentler, modern perspective. The campaign debuted with a striking bottle and the headline: “She’s a Daddy.”

To clarify, it’s not about sugar daddies. These ingredients were historically taken from women; now, the status is reclaimed from men. Also, the bottle itself could symbolize “Daddy.” It leaves space for interpretation; it’s food for thought. And in a way, maybe a provocation and a gentle middle finger.

The second. Sometimes I’m even team “several fragrances in one day”.

Very often, we make decisions based on fear and “What will people think about me when I wear this?”. Instead of asking “Do I like this?”

Leaving self-doubt behind is really helpful. Being open to surprise yourself. Same for the idea of “That’s not me!” – well, maybe, it’s not who you were, but maybe, it is who you will be from tomorrow on.

That brings us back to the people that wear my scents. I think that’s exactly the process they are going through. They understand that we evolve and develop, and that change is something positive.

You know when people say “You have changed!” with this certain tone of voice? My usual response to that  is „Thanks!”.

I can only guess but I’d say they feel whole and confident when wearing it. 

For me, perfume is like a message. It is something that people can’t see but notice. “Invisible, yet there” so to say and it tells them a lot about you. When it’s right it matches your algorithm. It’s a part of you like a piece of clothing, a handbag, a hair color, everything, and when you can identify with it, you feel even more confident and because of that people will resonate with you.

The message lies in what people (in the campaign) tell each other: “I love the way you smell.” This campaign highlights genuine connections, featuring real friends and customers of the brand in 11 short video clips. It’s about rethinking gender and emphasizing personality. In one of the clips, one friend described another as “an infinite source of light,” which moved them to tears. I never imagined that this would happen, it was very powerful. 

Moments like these matter more to me than market success. The goal is for my perfumes to truly touch people.

Perfumes can be difficult gifts. 

Rebuying a perfume that somebody already uses? Cool. Also, if you don’t care and you just want to tell somebody “Hey, when I smell this, I think of you. Maybe you like it – here’s a gift”. But giving a new scent as a couple can put a lot of pressure on each person. And it can also go terribly wrong. 

For that, we have discovery sets which include all six perfumes in the line. That’s a nice way to let people discover perfumes playfully. Approach gifting with a bit more space to explore.

Chrystal Haze. It’s conceptual, futuristic, and curious—like Berlin, a melting pot where people come to find themselves.