My practice is not the expression of contemplation or a virtuous display of technique, but a practice of confrontation, of questioning evidence and conventions, and it usually involves moving pieces, involves action —be it legal or not—, involves moving individuals —be they accomplices or not—, or carrying out bureaucratic procedures. It also means making the public institutions that hire me for my services move in a direction they have not previously explored; it means getting them engaged instead of being mere spectators. My works are composed of gestures and movements that escape representation; and what I end up showing in the exhibition space is certain traces or signs of these movements, not representations, not autonomous objects; the work’s autonomy is in the gesture.
My projects always originate from some social or political conflict that I feel called upon to deal with, and their aim is to try and bring out something that cannot be seen; in other words, and in simpler terms, to allow us to perceive something of what is real. And for this to be possible, my practice and my convictions must also be questioned.
On the other hand, I cannot deny that there is a strong subversive inclination in my work. It is rooted in the fact that I do not understand artistic practice as a cultural practice, but quite the opposite: I understand it as a socially and politically necessary practice in which the cultural and the established are brought into play.