Vision of art
1. Choose a work that represents you, describe it in relation to its format and materiality, its relation with time and space, its style and theme; detail its production process.
Half page, 6 pm at my studio, I stick pamphlets. A monstrous hit, intolerable since this morning, I rise the volume, Betty Hutton. Fine, just fine to continue with this. I measure the radiator’s cap, I do not know what to replace or seal so as not to knock over. Answer to question 1: the work that could make it to represent me is “Private Collection”. Photographic material that I select and rank, year after year, in folders, and that was far from being conceived as a project or a work -characteristic of its nature that I try not to disturb-. I Store files and folders of girls and women’s portraits, black and white, color, and in various formats. Elegant, delicate divas, no divas, playboy girls of a very particular insolence, outgoing, discrete… are part of a series of incredible poignant beauty. Inaccessible. Available just for me in the photograph paper or on the monitor of my computer. The production process in this collection, ranges from magazine photos -grab it off the boot-leaf and take it-, to precious sources such as cd covers bought in the park ferias or the web. Appropriation, selection and classification of this material is silent, secret and modest, and so is the space that I choose to exhibit them. It is also reserved and intimate. The inside of my closet. Why the inside closet space? When I think about it, obvious thoughts occur to me. This scenario links the work and spectator in a private, narrative and everyday like space that sometimes neutralizes the exchange while some others sacralizes the time of the exhibition. I back the winamp a few seconds; I would like to hear that voice again (what a fragility). Summing up, the question was: the work that best represents you. And so I answer with the work that represents me the most, which coincides with the work that more questions proposes me: How to "present" them without "exposing" them?. I hope I have been clear. I dance a little before moving on to question 2. I'm exhausted, but how well I get this step. Repeat.
2. In general terms, how would you suggest to approach your work?
My suggestion would be to take the frivolous seriously.
3. In reference to your work and your position in the national and international art fields, what tradition do you recognize yourself in? Who are your contemporary referents? What artists of previous generations are of interest to you?
Contemporary references: 1998, stripping a library letter F, Fleury Sylvie. The rest was wandering around other shelves on fever, heavy book under the arm, trying to master my emotions. Chanel colors, a black dice, the flirtation with the world of the muscles, advertising as a perfect entirely fictitious place to go for living. Superfluous, trivial, an artist gets interested in the shell and celebrates it. Sister. Her work legitimized mine. Respect, admiration, horror and the unrelenting decision of moving forward. "From the spiritual in art" to "From the superficial in the art." All that glitters is gold! Shine* Shine brighter!***** Calm, get Blossom Dearie down singing tout doucement. I do not want to lose the thread, since then, I did not have as significant anecdotal impact as this, but I can name other references, thing are more or less like this: a work or artist interests me, a sweet scene, a Bolero to the European way, some magazines are food for my work, I don’t fix a thing, I let them flow (François Ozon, Wong Kar-Wai, Jeff Koons, Richard Prince, Vanessa Beecroft, Fangoria). A gift from Anita O'Day before moving to answer 4: “There are moments now and then when I need your kiss again. I’m not lonely”. Unbelievable. What a win. I dance, not well, not very stylish, hip hip, I see my limits, I know my gestures. Do I still believe that creating is a craze without justifications?
4. Choose works or exhibitions from the last ten or fifteen years which in your opinion were very significant and explain why
I love the question within the paragraph where it says: “works or exhibitions in your opinion strongly significant”. Capriciously and unordered, I list and I do not give details about artists, works and exhibitions that were highly significant to me. Life and work of Dani Joglar, for countless reasons. SergitoAvello’s exhibitions at Dabbah, the Avello week, National Found for the Arts etc. Because he is a dedicated host, invites us to see his work as a social event that is in the throes of death, invites us with drinks, gives us his music, never sleeps. Lu Lamothe, when she gets romantic and scrapes off or when she gets into the materia to seize it. The columns in Harrods, the posters at Juana, the night table at Sendrós, the doors at the museum, the videos, all of her work, her exhibitions, all of her. The drawings of Ariel Vogue, Matias Duville, Eduardo Navarro, Vicente Grondona, Carlitos Hufman, for different reasons and some coincidences: the methodical economy of resource and the bewilderment. Leo and Bianchi, focused and working together, all the possible relationships. Greasy Bianchi at Belleza y Felicidad Gallery, at the fellowship K, at Harrods, at Moco, everywhere. The poetic launches of Juli Iriart. Erica Bohm’s obsession with pantone, Siquier with charcoal at Benzacar. The operation of the works of Galindo combined with the disintegration of his brain. I was very impressed by a debate that took place on the auditorium of arteBA 2005, where I first heard Roberto Jacoby while he was being reported by some media, I was so impressed that I wrote to him. Jorge Macchi and a work shown at Ruth called Ornament, that’s a work that I would have done myself, flowers as traces are multiplied in a beautiful wallpaper. A promising one: Ernest Ballesteros and his clouds, oncoming showing at Benzacar. 3 ½ pages of notes and corrections to go to the computer, the 1st one for boredom. Rest in peace. Jimena, listening to a Debussy quartet and getting ready to go out.