In especially aesthetic relationships between architecture and sculpture, the “maquette” concept appears several times from a three-dimensional point of view. Maquette is what it’s going to be, maquette is the future, even being something from the past. It’s always smoke, but dense smoke. In these places our minds imagine because they cannot normally experience beyond what they see. They compel you to imagine what you want to see, and what you’re watching now, too. The model forces you to act as air, that flows, as vacuum, that fills. It makes you a bird-man and mole at the same time. It is where the dimensions, abilities and the magnitude of space run.

The maquette can only transcend, because it will alternatively become a project and result (taking on a habitual sense), be given as a finished work for study, or disappear by mismatch with its creator, leaving in him, important signs of experience.

Designing a model, like a sculpture, like a child carrying his favorite toy car on a “scalextric” circuit. The car, as a sight able to move and brake carefully. And the child, for the seriousness with which he does it, with which he plays.

There are strict plastic and spatial ties of similarity between the model and the sculpture being both purely aesthetic pieces, which can opt for more, definitely quite anything.

On the maquette of a sculpture. Is it possible? Surely, the sketch it is. Is the model of a sculpture another sculpture already? The core is what tells us its purpose.

Among the different types of models, there are maquettes at 1:1 scale, where what we said is better understood and less experimented by the imagination. Among other things, architecture is, no doubt, a continuous comparison with human proportions. In sculpture, the idea of establishing scales is weak. Here is one of the differences between sculpture and not sculpture. Is categorizing sculpting itself?