Starting point What is your motivation/interest/desire? How do you enter your work? Is theoretical research necessary for your work? What importance has the starting point during the process?
Context How does space (architecture and social context) influence your work? When does work become political? Can art go beyond its cultural context? Do you use an external eye during the process? Does the knowledge of who your audience is influence the way you work? How does your economic circumstances effect your work? What is your relationship with the modes of production in which you develop your work? What are the implications of nomadism? In which art field do you position your work? How does art influence a broader context?
Authorship Do we create or make? How does collaboration question authorship? Is it possible to erase the author from the work? Who needs an author? What is your style, how does you signature establish through it? How do you relate to stealing? Are you acknowledging how your background has shaped you?
Points of exit What is a point of exit? When do you see the end? What ends and what starts when you finish a work? Is the product more valuable than the process? How do deadlines influence the process? What do you leave behind?
I sam not sure If I should this before the publication arrives, so I better wait before publishing my text.
We were also asked to give some feedback, also framed in a series of questions. In exchange, I will not write down the questions, but only my text/answer, and this is it:
multitude
INTERFERENCIAS was freaking weird. I had been working like crazy before getting there so I did not really know what to expect, I did not even have very clear what we were going to do. None of us did, apparently. Anyway, my expectations (because I cant say I didn’t have them) were very abstract, and so…
I found myself experiencing relations in two different ways at the same time: one was general; my relation to the group itself as an ungraspable-always-shifting-tidy-multiple entity, and the other way was particular: my relation to differentiated individuals, or to little sub-groups.
Though its inevitable and necessary, I have never been very fund of groups, and especially not fund of forcefully feeling part of one. There is a certain implicit subjection, a certain decline of the personal matters, the personal decisions. This declining does not make them disappear, of course; it just (normally) hands them over to someone (or something) else so you don’t have to take care. This is what I find so fucking fucked up. Of course it’s more comfortable, but it’s also dangerous. I don’t know if the system we came with in interferencias (because we came with a system) could actually work in a “society”. I mean, I think that, at the end, it does, but, hell! It’s slow. In terms of taking decisions, the way we worked is not practical at all; it takes ages, and its very exhausting. Of course everything depends on the circumstances, but even like that I would dare to say: What the fuck, make it slow, make it hard, make it unpractical, but make it cool. In the context of interferencias, no one ever gave up a personal perspective just to please someone, or just to agree easily. No one left its individuality in order to belong, and yet we all did belong, and fit and feel part of. No one handed over his or her personal matters and decisions in order to subject his or herself to an institution, and this is fucking amazing. Am I exaggerating? Am I overreacting/overacting? Am I being a memory-idealist? YES. But I am sure that this that I am writing, though is not precise, is quite recognizable. Lately I have been very interested (or interesting as many of you used to say) in the word multitude, and its etymology that could refer to a large number of people and its implicit multiplicity, to a plural entity, more than to an unrecognizable scummy mob.
Interferencias was a multitude; a plural entity that did not erase the particularities of its parts, put rather recognized them and even functioned from them. An immense machine, falling apart at every movement, including its dysfunctional system in its production ways and in its “product”. At least “I” learned a lot out of all the communication and organization problems. Couldn’t tell foshizle, but that was perhaps the greatest part of it.
More than “being” we were “becoming”. Always falling out of the expected. My way of seeing art and my own artistic process has definitely been affected by this big time, and I think it will keep going.
In the middle of this cancer tumor (with pieces of shapeless teeth, bone and hair inside it) the interferencias experience was; there was also a space for the tete a tete experience. (Of course, a personal relation inside such a context is not at all what it would be out of it, and so it cannot be tear out the common one) Besides of party, meal, hallway and casual talks –which were very important--, the workshops and the performances were determinant. Having the chance to get to know and relate to the work of others in that way, was the perfect other side of the multitude, it gave a face to the name, or a voice to the face, or a body to the voice, etc. independently of matters of personal taste, the rush of performances, and the tiredness of workshops, the fact of everybody knowing that (let’s face it) want it or not your work is gonna represent you in front of others, and the fact that it actually did, gave a whole other perspective to the collaboration, another layer of understanding (or not understanding) upon what we were doing.
There is also the situation about the people who were invited (oh, little thing). This way of making a people’s curatorship instead of a cv’s casting, apart from the fact of being quite a political statement, worked beautifully, I think (of course I was also invited hahaha).
So, perhaps intuition rocks, but what I can tell for sure, is that:
INTERFERENCIAS ROCKED
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario