EXPLORE. CREATE. RUN BAREFOOT.

While plans for a move have been foiled (temporarily), plans for moving forward have not. While it might be tempting to think of a taxing eight-week interview process and rejection as failure, it has proven itself to be more of a push to refinement in terms of my ‘self’, my craft, and what the future holds for me as an architect, actor, photographer, filmmaker, and entrepreneur.

I've always considered image and architecture to be inseparable truths. Architecture being both moving and still image in the form of place and space; image as the embodiment of space and place within frame and composition. But despite acknowledgement of their respective truths, I've made hard attempts at separating the two in my work life, believing practically that their truths were more true apart from one another. Loosely speaking, architecture was my spouse, the woman I've loved since childhood and would never betray, never lie to, never leave. Image—that is, film, photography, and acting—were best friends whom I met later in life (with the exception of film, who I met before architecture when I created stop motion movies on early iterations of computer cameras as a child) and began cultivating a deep friendship and comradery with. It was never that image and architecture didn't get along, it was that the room we all occupied simply felt too congested when we were all in it at once. It made sense to put them in separate rooms at the time, but now it's time, simply, to find a bigger room.

From a business perspective, I believed that architecture and image couldn't exist in the same arena for fear that others—observers, clients, friends, family, whoever—would find the entanglement as more of a gang bang than a classy dinner party. Why would someone hire an architect to design their home or museum when there exists so obvious a split between two professions? Would you trust a person who repairs shoes to fix the spline of an old novel? Perhaps you might, but I think it's more likely that you would go to the respective person to perform such a specific task. However, if you came across a Marvin's Excellent Shoe and Book Repair Shop, you might actually be intrigued. Perhaps you even heard through the local grapevine that the work Marvin does is of such high quality that one couldn't imagine him not doing either. Shoes and books for Marvin become like bread and butter to the customer.

Notwithstanding our friend Marvin, it is a valid question to ask why anyone would go to a filmmaker to design their home, or an architect to direct or star in their new film. But, simply put, those are not the people I want to work for or with. Recognizing that most people may not get it is really where the beauty of the whole thing lies. My first architecture clients were people who never saw any of my architecture work, because it didn’t exist, and hired me solely off of photography and a good interview over a bottle of wine.

Even still, let's suppose that 50% of the people who would hire me as an architect would only do so if I were solely an architect, and 50% of the people who would hire me as a filmmaker or photographer would only do so if I were solely a filmmaker or photographer. That leaves 100% of the work I could get in total, as either worker in that profession. But reduce that number even further (because no one gets 100% of the work they're after), to get even 20% of the jobs I want in either profession versus just 10% in one, that's a great success. And this isn't even taking into account those who would hire me precisely because I do both. Those are the people I'm after.

Beyond the practical, while visual reality implies that both architecture and image are undeniably intertwined, perhaps even obvious to anyone who stops to consider both with even a little bit of effort, there is a mystery to their relationship that has yet to be fully explored, in my opinion, by someone who occupies both spaces. Everybody wants to have a niche, something they're good at or known for, but the challenge faced with pursuing such an endeavor can be daunting or even unattractive precisely because the mystery—the inexplicable—and the work to be done are so great. But anyone who chooses not to pursue their calling because of these reasons is as ungrateful as they are lazy, of which I am neither.

But the thing for me—the most important thing—is the pursuit of a mission that when I die would leave me equally satisfied as unfulfilled. Satisfied in that the work brought contentment, wealth, and peace during my living years. Unfulfilled in that there is so much work to be done that it couldn't possibly be done in one's lifetime. A legacy which would continue for decades, maybe centuries, into the future. Not unlike a NASA engineer working her entire life toward making interstellar travel an eventual reality, one she will never get to experience.

Today marks a new milestone in the venture of my creative life. The beginning of a long-awaited cohesion of image and architecture, mysterious in its essence but undeniable in its relevance to pursue. The thing that makes me tick, that causes me to question the world and embrace it at the same time. The reason for getting out of bed each morning. The thing which brings me peace as I lay my head down each night because of its truth. And that which so greatly utilizes all aspects of my personal and professional self that it has no other choice than to serve others with uncompromising honesty, quality, and creativity.

“HEY MATTEO, DID YOU READ MY MANIFESTO? I EMAILED IT TO YOU. I DIDN’T GET THE JOB.”

I’ve read it. Although I really appreciate your openness and acknowledge your ability of using poetry and metaphors to make it a great read, I think I am not completely supportive of that, for two reasons:

One: Overall, I think that most of all it underline the necessity of logically understand things, and logically motivate those things to people, that you say you’re serving -- which is exactly my point, you shouldn’t serve anyone, and not thinking logically about things that are brought by feelings - otherwise you’ll never sleep at night. And…

Two: There’s a huge thing that you don’t consider in your analysis (in my opinion): it’s not a matter of the outcome in %, of people who would or would not choose to work with you if you were doing both or a single thing. What you don’t consider is something even bigger and exponential. Growth. A person learns the 80% of an art in the 20% of time. For the rest 20% and to master that art it takes the 80% of time. In the same 100% of time you could become 80% good in five disciplines or 100% great in one. But guess what, the ideas and opportunities and connections you make knowing five different crafts will lead you to the moon, compared to someone who masters one thing. Food for thought.

I’m always on your side, but be less logical and don’t ever limit yourself— and if people don’t like you, [who cares]. If they don’t hire you, find a way to do something that nobody else does, and disregard their opinion.

Explore, create, run barefoot.