Who influences you graphically?
Firstly, as a student, I have had the opportunity to work with Clement Talbot, a friend who graduated two years before me . I have to say he has always been a great source of inspiration for me. Thanks to him, I quickly realized that the representation of an architecture project had to enhance the essence of the concept rather than to show as many elements as possible.
I also have to say that many drawings found through the architectural review inspired my work (to many to mention every single author…). It’s always been a kind of objective for me to reach this type of abstraction. I have always been fascinated by the heterogeneity of the work I found there. I figured out that very simple images could be as efficient and powerful as very complex -but wonderful- hand-made drawings.
Finally, as I really feel like creating an architectural document is comparable to painting, I could mention two painters: Edward Hopper and William Turner.
It’s quite easy to imagine in which way those painters could be inspiring, however, I find it important to underline a common obsession found in their work (very different at first sight): the free use of light effects in order to focus on an ambiance rather than an objective representation.
Your images are very inclusive of the viewer, how important is it to present the proposal subjectively rather than objectively?
My answer to the first question might give some clues… To put it in a nutshell, I always try to override reality in order to communicate better the essence of the project.
What is your take on the axonometric as an objective method of representation?
To me, the axonometric is a simple, efficient and honest way to represent a three dimensional space. It enhances the idea of reshaping reality in order to focus on precise entries.
To what extent is an atmospheric image as yours more valuable and interesting when compared to a hyper realistic render?
Hyper realistic renders are very precise and modern tools which allow an uninitiated public to understand a project very quickly. To me, the main drawback of such tools consists in the passive attitude it automatically generates. An atmospheric image proposes an alternative based on the spectator’s imagination and ability to project himself. To me, communicating an atmosphere is more dynamic; it’s a way to interact with the viewer.
You seem to have a narrow and clean colour palette for each proposal, what is the effect and purpose behind this?
To be very honest, I don’t feel very comfortable with colors (except black and white!)… Most of the time, I chose one main color for the project and decline it by playing on hue and contrast. There are advantages and drawbacks, it automatically creates harmony between all the documents but also reduces the range of possibilities in terms of atmosphere. Who knows, one day I might feel more comfortable with colors and extend my palette a little bit more…