Hug x Depardon
Design
2015
Scenography
The spatial device echoes with modesty to urban organization of the city of New York. The proportions of the orthogonal grid have been implemented across the furniture to generate fixed length and width. Only heights vary, the image of this city that unfolds vertically like Rem Koolhaas emphasizes in Delirious New York, "Each block is an island in wich architectural folklore could be experimented". Within the HUG gallery, we find ourselves thus face two spheres. On the one hand, a glimpse of the life contained in a frame, a format. On the other hand, a city set by a frame which gives her measurement limits. We would therefore be tempted to point to a correspondence between the photographic work and architecture. The photographic support remains inert but refers to a movement, an action. Similarly, stones bricks mounted above a building keep them in an inertia, a tension inevitably maintained by gravity. By extrapolation, it is interesting to note that this analogy can be read at different scales. The photographic frame is the container, the boundary of the image. It is potentially the measurement area in which the architecture grows. The moment fixed by photography would be compared with a building, embodying a lifestyle. Thus, we might ask ourselves about the ubiquity of the vacuum, one left hanging between the photographs and the one cut streets of the city. Is it not all that the lens has not picked up, the negative envelope of the photographic act? The space is built where the mental image of a city, of his life and his time?
Design
2015
Scenography
The spatial device echoes with modesty to urban organization of the city of New York. The proportions of the orthogonal grid have been implemented across the furniture to generate fixed length and width. Only heights vary, the image of this city that unfolds vertically like Rem Koolhaas emphasizes in Delirious New York, "Each block is an island in wich architectural folklore could be experimented". Within the HUG gallery, we find ourselves thus face two spheres. On the one hand, a glimpse of the life contained in a frame, a format. On the other hand, a city set by a frame which gives her measurement limits. We would therefore be tempted to point to a correspondence between the photographic work and architecture. The photographic support remains inert but refers to a movement, an action. Similarly, stones bricks mounted above a building keep them in an inertia, a tension inevitably maintained by gravity. By extrapolation, it is interesting to note that this analogy can be read at different scales. The photographic frame is the container, the boundary of the image. It is potentially the measurement area in which the architecture grows. The moment fixed by photography would be compared with a building, embodying a lifestyle. Thus, we might ask ourselves about the ubiquity of the vacuum, one left hanging between the photographs and the one cut streets of the city. Is it not all that the lens has not picked up, the negative envelope of the photographic act? The space is built where the mental image of a city, of his life and his time?
