27 May 2026
Artist Highlight - What's Wrong Duo
Interview and Review
WHAT’S WRONG DUO is a collectable design practice based between Zurich and Bucharest, founded by Sandra Berghianu and Julien Hauchecorne. Bringing together backgrounds in ceramics, visual arts, furniture and interior design, the duo explores the intersection of craft, material experimentation, and conceptual making. Their work often transforms reclaimed, overlooked or industrial materials through intuitive, process-led methods, producing one-off pieces that sit between sculpture and functional object. They have presented work internationally, including at Dutch Design Week, and continue to develop site-responsive projects that foreground the dialogue between material, gesture, and space.
ARTIST INTERVIEW
1. Your mirrors challenge the expectation of reflection as a clear reproduction of reality. What interested you in exploring reflection as an unstable or partial experience?
We see our own image constantly—through photographs, selfies and social media in general—yet none of these reflections fully align with how we perceive ourselves. The reflected self is always different from our perceived self, and perhaps neither version can be called “reality.”
Design is often driven by utility, by making life more efficient or straightforward. In that sense, there is little need to create another mirror that simply reflects. Instead, our interest lies in using the mirror as a medium to question.
The emergence of photography in the 19th century fundamentally shifted how identity and reality were represented. Once images could be captured with precision, painting no longer needed to serve as a perfect mirror of the world, and artists turned toward expression, perception, and subjectivity.
Our mirrors respond to a similar condition. Rather than reproducing reality, they explore its instability—inviting viewers to reconsider the reliability of their own image and the idea of a fixed, universal reality.
2. The work draws inspiration from the way light moves across rough water. How did this natural phenomenon inform the visual language of the mirrors?
Water was perhaps the earliest surface through which humans could encounter their own reflection. Unlike today’s mirrors or digital images, that reflection was unstable and vague. It was never fixed or entirely legible.
This idea became a reference for the visual language of the mirrors. Rather than offering a hyper-realistic, continuous reflection, our mirrors echo that same fluidity—where the image is partial, distorted, and in flux. Looking into one’s own reflection becomes a primitive, abstract experience, before precision and resolution became the norm.
3. Your process emphasises physical gestures such as bending, assembling, and reworking materials. How do these actions remain visible in the final objects?
We intentionally preserve the traces of making—fingerprints, marks, joints—so that our physical interaction with the material, and the process of making, remain visible. The final objects are the result of physical actions: partly controlled, and partly determined by the material.
While the reflection itself is blurred or destabilised, the act of making is made explicit. In a way, we obscure the face but reveal the actions of the body. What becomes visible is not a clear image of the self, but evidence of human presence and creativity.
This shift is important to us. The mirror is traditionally a tool for self-recognition, tied to appearance and surface. Our mirrors attempt to respond differently and to open up further questions—suggesting that who we are might be better understood through what we do, rather than how we appear.
4. As a collaborative duo, your work emerges from dialogue between two makers. How does this shared process influence the development of the pieces?
Our collaboration is shaped by our different backgrounds. Julien brings a foundation in classical design and historical context, while Sandra’s practice is rooted in material experimentation, particularly through ceramics.
This creates a dynamic where each project moves between conceptual thinking and hands-on exploration. Ideas are tested through making, and material discoveries often reshape the initial concept. Rather than following a fixed plan, the process evolves through dialogue, and the final pieces are results of this back-and-forth.
5. Within The Invisible Made Visible, the work reveals subtle phenomena of light and perception. What do you hope viewers begin to notice differently about reflection when encountering these mirrors?
We’re not necessarily aiming for a single, revelatory moment. Instead, we hope the work opens a question about how we perceive reflection and reality.
By stepping outside the usual expectations of a mirror—as a tool for clear, faithful reproduction—the viewer is invited to question that assumption. The reflection becomes less about accuracy and more about experience.
If anything, we hope the work opens up a small doubt: that reality might not be something stable or perfectly reflected, but something partial, shifting, and open to interpretation.
REFLECTION, DISTORTION, AND THE LIMITS OF SEEING
Review by Chih-Yang Chen, Art Director
WHAT’S WRONG DUO approach the mirror by undoing what it is expected to do. Instead of offering a clear reflection, their work interrupts it. The surface breaks, distorts, fragments the image. What you see is partial, unstable, sometimes difficult to recognise.
This shift is immediate. You look, but the image doesn’t return in a familiar way. It moves, slips, dissolves across the surface. The reference to water becomes apparent here, not as a direct imitation, but in how the reflection behaves. It recalls something earlier, before mirrors became precise, when seeing oneself meant dealing with movement and uncertainty.
There is a tension between what is revealed and what is withheld. The face becomes unclear, but the object itself is direct. The materials, the joins, the gestures of bending and assembling remain visible. You can follow how the piece is made. In that sense, the work reverses the usual role of the mirror. It obscures the image but exposes the process.
The physicality of making plays an important role. Marks, irregularities, small imperfections are not removed. They sit on the surface, interrupting it further. These traces ground the work, keeping it tied to the body and to action. The object carries evidence of handling, of decision, of adjustment.
Collaboration is also embedded in this. The work doesn’t feel singular or fixed. It moves between control and experimentation, between structure and response. That exchange is visible in how the pieces hold together, not entirely resolved, but balanced through negotiation.
What the work does is shift attention away from recognition. Instead of confirming an image, it unsettles it. You become aware of how much you rely on clarity to understand what you see. Without it, perception slows down. You spend more time trying to locate yourself within the surface.
There’s no clear conclusion offered. The mirrors don’t replace one image with another. They leave the question open. What does it mean to see yourself, if the image cannot be trusted? The work doesn’t answer this directly. It simply holds the uncertainty in place.