Imagined architectures, architected images

I address the historical approaches between photography and painting . However, instead of adopting a pictorialist language, I use geometric abstraction. I photograph buildings to undo them. With its fragments, I create imaginary architectures.

In these images, everything is architecture and everything is photography, including the colors, which are photographs of surfaces. Neverthless, my intention is to deconstruct and reconstruct both the idea of architecture and photography.

Since its invention, in the first half of the 19th century, photography has maintained interrelations with painting. When photographers started to make portraits and landscapes in a more reliable and easier to obtain register than that of painters, painting migrated to other expressive forms. The academic rules, which had guided the conduct of painters since the Renaissance, began to be challenged. This process resulted in pictorial movements such as impressionism, cubism and expressionism, among others.

On the other hand, photography, born as an industrial invention, sought to legitimize itself as art, approaching painting. Initially through the use of themes and compositions from classic painting - portraits, landscapes, still lifes - and, later, through impressionist aesthetics.

In “Imagined architectures, architected images” series, I address these reciprocal approaches between painting and photography. However, instead of adopting a pictorialist or impressionist language, I use geometric abstraction. I move away from the photographic notion of “capture” as well as the faithful representation of the world in order to construct images.

In short, I photograph buildings to undo them. With its fragments, I create collages, juxtapositions, overlaps. Born from built architecture, the photographs are transfigured. They become imagined architectures. Architected images. Like a painting.