Dieecke

The title of your exhibition at Galería Die Ecke, Ocular espectacular II (líneas) is almost identical to Ocular espectacular, a title used by Chilean artist Juan Céspedes for his solo show at Galería MORO during August and September 2009. It seems as if this was a second version or second part of the exhibition at MORO, or seems to even be a tribute to Céspedes. Why did you choose this closeness of the titles?

- The title Ocular espectacular II (líneas) is a way to connect two exhibitions. Juan’s title is a variation of the album of the band MGMT, which is actually called Oracular Spectacular. And both of us like MGMT. The works of Juan inhabit a similar space to my works, being clear in their form and shape: they are photographs and sculptures. Mine are sculptures. Interestingly, being works of art from classical categories, they also connect with more ambiguous concepts. They are refined and subtle works. They have ideas behind them that do not try to impose themselves on the viewer, but are opening up within their formal powers. In other words, they seem to be one thing but work differently, “ocular spectacular”, like a cheap magic trick. They are works of art that address concepts that have to do with their visual power while simultaneously connecting to various stories and ideas, without being monotonous or dependent on texts. That is the connection. Finally, the most obvious thing is that they link two timely occasions and two galleries in Santiago.

- No, I did not see Juan’s exhibition, only photos, although I have seen the works live here in Chile. On the other hand, the exhibitions are not a tribute, rather they celebrate the spirit of the title that is intuitive, semi-descriptive and, of course, funny. It is not something serious about the music. They are connections of similar taste.

The similarity between Juan’s and my work would be that we like to rely on intuitions and work with them - with things you do not know well but think you can see them in the work you do. That is, one does them in order to begin to understand certain issues that come from the unconscious or are connected with more fragile and hidden tastes and affiliations. If you now ask me for my ideas behind the works … In the case of Juan it is the optical lenses, artificial representation of natural phenomena, alienation and humour … And the painted cans are a trap, they seem to be critical but instead they consist of an almost formal study of things that appear obvious. This makes them art and permeable, even when they are only beer cans. Well, I could continue but I will not “interpret” his work. Doing that is precisely the least interesting.

Now, I can tell you about the “ideas behind” my work: They are northern Chile, manual labour and its history. These works were initially made as part of a two-year research project with Harvard University, which will end in March 2010. Working with the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, I studied the history of Massachusetts, trade union movements and struggles of American workers in that state … Finally, I enumerate: sculpture as artistic medium, modernism, the neo-concrete movement, saltpetre, marble, fluids, etc. I think that my works are all of those simultaneously, not to refer to other things that I do not know how to describe.

The concepts / references are useful for making a sculpture. It is for them that I can make sculptures. I know that my work is not sincere to the material, but it is rather used as a vehicle for information. I know that people, seeing the works, will also be infected by all the references and in each sculpture, one aspect will be on view more clearly than others. In this sense, they are variations. The general idea behind it is to make conceptual art. All art is conceptual, obviously, but I mean an art that really is connected to the concepts and stories that create this thing and the relationship that the public may have with the object and who are projecting it.

How to make sculptures if one finds it “idiotic” to do that? What is the exit, then? I make my works because I like them: they seduce and also accept contradictions. They are what they seem, with conviction, but at the same time, they erase themselves, pull the other way. In that sense they are fragile and precise.

- The material and technique are chosen through the basic approach of considering whether or not they coincide with the idea and if the piece is going to work with such materials and techniques. The idea is the work, things are vehicles, fragmentary, incomplete and, most of the time, smarter than you. But, at least what matters to the artist from the beginning, is that the pieces have to work with and for the idea.

I like drawings, paintings, sculptures, videos, I enjoy them, but that does not mean that I get carried away by the material or technique. In contrast, the works only function if they stick to the ideas. The intuitive part is to believe in the process and work it through fairly quickly. The material I use, wall glue and paste, is placed with care and, of course, intentionally. Perhaps what you say is that the works appear to be “expressive” or something … The outcome depends critically on relationships that are too fragile to be drawn just like that. And the works have to be accurate even when they do not appear to be so. So yes: the material is part of the content. Otherwise, it would be another thing and another thing does not work here.

The information can only be understood through erasures and a material excess, dryness, light, volumes of ropes, poles and materials, etc. Otherwise, the sculptures are like folkloric fair items or unintentionally bad sculptures or simply pastiches.

The lack of sincerity with the material is not due to the fact that I do not care about the blank and the material; what matters to me is what both of them produce. I am not a sculptor in that sense, I am not a painter in that sense, even when I paint every day, I am not an artist who does drawings and so on. My sincerity is in what the works can evoke in the viewer and in me, not what they are in the old sense of the word: commitment to the craft and material. These boring things do not matter. I even hope to use these expectations to be part of the functioning of the work, this denial of “this is not what you think it is”.

- The connection you draw is very good. Yes, my work has to do with West as well as other, many other artists, because all these things are always connected to previous works in many different ways.

That phrase about aid is there to open the possible readings of the works, so the spectators do not think the sculptures are to be only “contemplated” but to suggest to whoever sees them that they are active. The way they are installed, with carton and stains, guide the readings into the direction that gives you an idea that something is “in process”.

Now, for me it is not necessary for anyone to take up a sculpture or interact with it. The context of the West’s work is different from mine. It is enough for me that the works are not seen as something static. The part of “aid” would lead rather to thinking that the works are pieces of a code that can be read (it is tempting to think about art in relation to cryptography), that the sculptures have all these references we have discussed and that the way they can be read is inscribed in themselves. All this is a way of dealing with the problem of reading art: that one feels to see something that is always in doubt because they do not know how to read the works. These works call attention only because their reading codes are in themselves, as I said, in a very clear way, especially for a Chilean public.