Estudio Rare: An Architecture of Experimentation Through Art

In a conversation with Agustín Willnecker (AW), Iván Ferrero (IF), and Mateo Unamuno (MU), we discussed the experimental universe they immerse themselves in when creating architecture, the relationship between architecture and art, their material exploration, and how all of this shapes the distinctive identity of Estudio Rare.

ArchDaily (Paula Pintos): The relationship between art and architecture appears as a fundamental axis in your work. What does this relationship mean to you? How do you transition from thinking and creating a work of art to creating a piece of architecture?

AW: We are more interested in the processes than in the finished work. The relationship between art and architecture is tied to the process: it can serve as a starting point. Both disciplines intersect to ignite or complete an idea, so perhaps the connection between art and architecture is the process itself. That’s why we also say there’s no real difference—creating a sculpture can be as complex as designing a building. We focus on the process that will guide us through the experimentation throughout the project.

IF: During my studies, there was a time when we did not incorporate human scale into models, as it was believed that a project could be a building, a piece of furniture, or a chair. The reflection was on the extent of architecture because we were designing a piece of furniture that could also be a facade or a building. These boundaries are blurred, and that’s what interests us. The relationship between art and architecture also emerges as a way to professionalize a hobby. If we are creating a sculpture or participating in a competition, why can’t it be our job? Sometimes we are commissioned for an artistic installation, and we are sought out because we work with certain materials. We don’t treat these installation or sculpture proposals as merely artistic events; we also document them, take photos, create plans, and think about the technical details, etc. When we understood this comprehensively, we saw that architecture was part of it all.

MU: Discussions about the relationship between art and architecture are always ongoing. We question where a sculpture begins and where a work of art ends. We also consider how architecture relates to function, given that an architectural project typically undergoes a planning stage before execution, while a work of art can be much more spontaneous. Additionally, we relate our work to music and time, exploring countless variables and concepts. These are discussions we keep open to this day.

AD: How is the process of translating concepts from art to architecture? What happens when you encounter commissions with very specific or seemingly rigid programs, or when function comes into play?

AW: Today, the artistic act is also very open. There are artists who work from the project, others who work from a budget, and some spaces themselves can be considered works of art. I believe that having a function does not make a work of art any less artistic. Experiencing something, moving away from the idea that function must be specific, allows you to explore other possibilities and challenge limits. Why should walls be flat? Perhaps they could be inclined or adapted differently to loads. In the case of Christian Kerez’s Pavilion, is it architecture, is it art? And what is its specific function? The work invites you to move through it, to inhabit it, to interact with it, and poses questions about what cannot be entered or experienced in a conventional way.

IF: We also question ourselves what is the responsibility of art. Although it is often associated with absolute freedom, art is also subject to a budget, context, and specific locations, just like architecture. We make a significant effort to educate about this. When something new is proposed, whether it’s a space, a material, or a different approach, it undoubtedly introduces a new mode of use. For example, if we design a unique commercial space, we strive to educate both its users and those who manage it about how the space will function.

AD: What is the effect and reception of incorporating this artistic, experimental aspect and innovative solutions into projects when they encounter the user?

MU: I believe that sometimes this can be more challenging, while other times the client is more receptive. We make an effort to advocate for our proposals. We engage in communication work, whether through graphics, videos, models, or discursive strategies with the client. In meetings, we try to have all team members present and involve other people if possible, so that the client feels part of the process and accepts the idea. We also aim to make the client feel genuinely but persuasively involved in the process. If necessary, we try to have the client identify with the proposal and integrate it as their own. Ultimately, it is a constant effort to defend what we believe to be right.

AD: Do you think that clients who come to you already have a clearer idea of your approach or a more open mindset to explore less conventional proposals?

IF: Absolutely. Often, our colleagues refer clients to us, knowing that we have this exploratory and experimental approach. Over time, we’ve managed to professionalize this service. What we offer is support to other professionals, understanding that some architects excel in construction while others are strong in different areas. As a creative studio, we can assist and advise in the creative phase, helping to develop ideas, even if we don’t end up completing the entire project.

AW: We also strive to create tools to adapt our presentations to each client and project. For instance, if we believe a client might not benefit from seeing the project in plan view, we choose to present it through drawings or perhaps use only images or materials in initial meetings. Sometimes, we even organize a performance as the first encounter. The idea is to move away from the conventional notion that meeting with an architect only involves looking at plans, which often aren’t fully understood. So we try to play around with these options.

AD: And related to that, is there a working methodology that repeats across all your projects?

AW: The question we always ask ourselves is: What are we going to do this time? What are we going to explore with this project? The exploration can take a single direction or branch out in many ways. And, as a collective studio with many people, we consider how we will approach this exploration. Each project is, in itself, a quest, always contextualized, thought about from this place in the world with a specific reality. We are very focused on executing what we conceive, so we ask ourselves: What are we going to explore this time?

MU: And that leads to multiple ways of presenting or conceptualizing. For instance, when presenting in a meeting, it could be through a video, a performance, a model, etc.

IF: It also helps us to frame the exercise by keeping this initial question always in mind. Thus, regardless of which battles we win or lose in relation to the client’s requests and how they influence the project, there is a central idea in each project that never gets lost because it is non-negotiable. This idea might involve exploring material, experimenting with the street, or blurring the boundaries between inside and outside. Afterward, we are open to any choice of materials or details.

AD: The craft aspect is evident even within industrialization and technology, both in design and construction. How does that material exploration work?

AW: Córdoba has a significant material culture. We have concrete production, brickworks, and industries that offer a broad spectrum of materials to explore. We allow ourselves to investigate from multiple perspectives. The question of what we will work with is also tied to a specific material. In each project, we pose this initial question. For example, if we decide to work with wood and metal, we focus on those materials. In other cases, we might design a new type of brick. Currently, we are developing a ceramic brick, which requires us to collaborate with brick manufacturers and visit concrete industries to understand the pre-molding process. The material focus is always present and drives us to engage with other stakeholders. An example of this was the facade of Caffe del Popolo, where we wanted a continuous, folded surface that could be systematized into four panels. Considering that using sheet metal would be heavy and complicated due to seams, we researched and experimented with less conventional materials, leading us to fiberglass. We strive to expand the material universe with which we work.

AD: Additionally, how do you integrate sustainability and optimization into this process?

MU: We approach it from a transversal perspective, aiming for durability over time, ease of assembly and disassembly, and cost-effectiveness. It’s an aspect that we almost subconsciously consider because it’s essential for us. We also think about how the material ages, avoiding overloading it with accessories.

IF: From a more passive perspective, we create spaces, houses, and extensions always considering factors such as sunlight, orientations, and openings consciously. We also consider efficiency in our work. This includes how much time we spend on production, on the computer, and on thinking. In this context, computational efficiency is relevant: we aim to develop programs that optimize computer use to achieve the same result with less processing. This approach is also applied to our work.

AD: What are your future professional projections? What topics are you interested in investigating and developing further?

MU: We would love to work on projects that, regardless of their size or type, include installations, curatorial work, or aspects related to assembly and editing. We are interested in activities that intertwine disciplines, such as research in science or biology. When these opportunities arise, we find them very exciting.

AW: We are also interested in developing cultural projects, such as museums or spaces dedicated to the performing arts. We believe we could make significant contributions in these areas. We recently read Federico Soriano’s thesis, which includes a chapter titled “Sin Escala,” exploring the idea that scale is not fixed and that the process is fundamental. Interestingly, in our case, designing a concrete bench for the street can take as much time as designing a house. When boundaries are open, many possibilities can emerge, such as editorial or management projects, which we consider equally complex and important, involving a similar number of stakeholders as designing a home.