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.
Piece of art: “1 Silence Minute” Characteristics: Urban intervention. Proposal and production: Urbomaquia (Ávila. Lucero, Di Negro). Presentation date: November 28th, 2005. Location: 27 de abril st., between Obispo Trejo st. and Velez Sarfield Avenue.
Description: 1 Silent5 Minute aim is to silence the visual noise produced by billboards, ads, etc. that promote goods and shops in a street central in both commercial and traffic ways (bus waiting area). We covered with white sheets the advertisements (billboards, signals, posters, etc.) having previously agreed with each shop owner. This production took place during the Human Rights Meetings and it was a continuation of an intervention that took place during the elections, in which the politician’s propaganda was marked with a barcode and the text: Be careful with the image. In 1 Minute, from each shop, there would hang a barcode with only ceros in the numeration and the name of the action. On top of this, we gave inn some stickers that people used to silence other spots. In that way, the action spread.
This piece of art has several dimensional spaces: The process to achieve this project had both relational and performatic aspects since it started with getting the shop owner to be a co-producer of the intervention, just by saying yes. In that point, the place, and the meaning of art ere discussion issues. All this was video tapped and there is textual record in the papers signed by the intervening parts. The realization implied an amplified team work that occupied the whole street with its action, while shops would still be working. The silent presence of these veils, that where slowly uncovered, high lightened by the media, was ephemeral (just a day). Space and time were the basis for the production of the play and its reading in meaningful terms.
2. In general terms, how would you suggest to approach your work?
Broadly, what would be my suggestion to read my production? My work can be approached to in several ways depending on the place and moment of reception, in this moment you are reading it (imagining) and it constructs in a new particular way. Between material and narration there are differences, but they both build the piece of art.
I’m particularly interested in the articulation between private and public (public space/private property/goods). Also the relation between the extended and complex process and the extremely short time of exhibition that answers to the ephemeral poetic that has to do with the everyday street.
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?
In art after Duchamp, in the art opening after feminism. Referents are to me, Bajtín’s dialogic concept, Kawabata’s literature, Lars Von Trier’s cinema, Jeff Wall and Nan Goldín’s photography, and the art production by Victor Grippo, Hélio Oiticica, Cildo Meiriles, Alberto Greco, Jenny Holzer, Rebeca Horn, Bill Viola, Krizisztof Wodiezko, Nan Goldín, Graciela Sacco, Jorge Macchi etc.
4. Choose works or exhibitions from the last ten or fifteen years which in your opinion were very significant and explain why
Exposed art in museums, galleries or fairs hasn’t been in the last years the most interesting to me. I prefer no legitimated experiences as “art” or anything that leads to the question “Why us that art?”. For example, I’ve been collecting tickets as small graffitis in public role. Anyway, I will point out two exhibitions for their narrative as event:
León Ferrari’s exhibition at the Recoleta Cultural Center (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Because of the debate about art and censorship. And the Córdoba artists selection for the program Argentina Paints Nicely [Argentina Pinta Bien] at the Recoleta Cultural Center(Buenos Aires, Argentina) as well. This is a clear manifestation of my province suffering situation when it comes to cultural politics and management: 5 of the artists had official charges at the time: Pablo Canedo ( Province Culture Secretary), Daniel Capardi (Head mister of the Caraffa Museum) , Jorge Torres ( Headmister of the Contemporary Art Center) Juan Longhini ( had an important position at the museum) Ana Luisa Bondone ( Headmistress of the Province’ High Institute of Fine Arts). Other 4 artists had a working relation with the Caraffa Museum . 57 were men (81%). 11 where women (19 %). And in the “Masters” category, there were no women.