In the photographic representation of architecture, the omniscient yet absent characters are those who inhabit it. This is a conventional code, but also a symptom of autarky, as though life incorporated unacceptable disorders into the precise conception of interiors, as if the recipients of construction projects were at once protagonist and hindrance.

The baroque of domesticity in contrast to the minimalism of the void. The persuasion of this type of generic housing, inhabited by a perfect, uncritical middle class, as opposed to the situated and inappropriate uses of those who are already in there, interacting. Tuning in response to seriality, cultural turns undoing rendered space.

The house as a machine for living in, the site of rituals, tasks, coexistence and forms of externalization that design and at once restructure what is designed. People whose origin, salary and social background “communicate” messages that are not always in keeping with the idiosyncrasies of their own homes.

The very idea of property and, at the same time, the right to housing enter into a complex dialogue when we observe, from the viewpoint of hygienic voyeurism or edifying anthropology, to what extent places can define us without completely belonging to us, places that, though not completely determining us either, we do not want to leave.