My objects interpret and are interpretable, therefor they are called Interpretables. The starting point ofthe Interpretables is an abstract idea, which can be mathematical, metaphorical, functional, psychological, constructive or whatsoever, but it is not pictorial. 

​

The objects that result from this process are interpretations of this original idea. Since it is an open process thatalways reflects itself, it develops consciously, but does not pursue a predefined goal.

​

Hand sketches, digital models, renderings, color layers, textures, contexts, model photos etc. are projected, combined, deformed, alienated so that new perspectives, new findings of the initial idea can be obtained.

​

For example, the projection of a 3D model onto an 2D image surface in a different spatial context can lead to a reinterpretation of the initial idea, which in turn creates a new 3D object.

​

The fact that the objects themselves are interpretations of an abstraction makes them interpretable. They do not represent, they do not depict, but they enable. That is why they are concrete, because they create and shape a piece ofreality - depending on who interprets them and how.

​

Why? In a nutshell, interpretability means freedom. Interpretation is a first word, definition is a last. On my opinion werequire already defined things because we are not free. But I want to create things that give freedom.

​

​

​

HEINERBREUER

Dipl. Ing. (TU) Architecture and Urban Design

​

​

​

"Form follows function" is the unshakable theorem of modernity. The function defines the object, be it a building, a piece of furniture or whatsoever. But as the function defines the object, the object defines its user. The user may think that he has a practical flat, but in fact he is driven by his apartment because it determines his behavior. A fitted kitchen can only be used in the manner prescribed by it.

 

The form follows the function and the user follows the form.

 

However, a fire can be anything: hotplate, heat donor, conflagration. It takes a person today to say "cook my water" and tomorrow "warm my house". Through the word of a human, a fire becomes something. Without the word of a human being it is nothing, just chemistry and physics.

 

In the functionalism another person has already spoken that word for you; basically, a totalitarian act of external control.

 

As opposed to this, the interpretable object, abbreviated interpretables, are fire. It becomes what it is by a person telling what it is. The Creator says to his work, "I want you to be. Be. "The user says to his object," I want you. Come over." 

 

The Creator says "yes" to the object to become originated, the user says "yes" to the object, because it has been originated. This moment is a second act of creation. This is the mechanics of the creative. Giving and receiving. Or reject. This is freedom.

​

I am concerned with the staging of this moment. This moment is holy. This moment is free. It is the most intimate moment that exists. That's why it is untouchable.

​

This moment is real. It is not a metaphor or allegory, it is not part of a picture world, this “yes” is part of the reality. Interpretables create reality. They do not represent the process, they enable it. That's why interpretables are not sculptures but architectures.

 

Something starts with a “yes”. With a “no” it stops. Everything ends in the functionalist design, except the function. That is why the functional object is very close to a “no”. And modernity very close to totalitarianism.

 

Interpretables are the antithesis of functionalism. Because their form does not follow the function, but their function follows their form. Because their creator and owner wanted it that way.

 

We need functional things because we are not free. But we should create things that give us freedom.

​

 

HEINERBREUER

Dipl. Ing. (TU) Architecture and Urban Design