Even so I would like there to be stable, immutable places; places that act as a reference point, a starting point, as beginnings...

It is the first time that I have tried to organize a project taking a model as a starting point to resolve.

How does one perceive the totality of units in a sculpture? Objects do not proportion us with an image of the world, but instead they offer us their own particular vision of it; and it is from this uncertainty that I will try to resolve and name the specificity of the conflictive object.

For that reason, each and every one of these objects should be situated on the same visual plan, without any scenography: One object in front of another; so that we may look straight through each one of them holding our gaze on small fragments making the rest disappear; and leaving only that segment that small square centimeter. I can even loose my gaze inside that white and cotton-like surface that simulates a lamb's skin; in the display cases there will not even be a single object. There will be nothing but that undefined material. The aim being to carry the frame view to infinity without paying attention to the objects, but, rather to face up to and comb the space in a tactile way: capturing what would be their own sensitive qualities, looking into show cabinets and observing the micro-rituals of the symbolic object; an available and predisposed space that accepts breaking or fragmentation integrating it the very moment in which it occurs.

We have, in my opinion, I believe, that responsibility, implicit in our condition of being a creator; or rather; should I say that obligation; to create a platform in order to speak about the complexity of language.

From these experiments I am trying to use various strategies of dislocation with the object: fragmentation, chipping or burnishing in some cases; all of which are methods that require the most fragile conditions of experience with reference to objects, sculpture and plastic art In any case I understand that this should not just focus simply on expression and form, but also with what happens, that is with the incident itself. That is to say, it is not just the way of explaining the object that really matters, but how you have reached it and how you make that transition or fluid movement that appears to be resolving itself in that very place and at that very time.

The objects say "sorry: but this is not what it appears to be, take a closer look" This project also proposes a walk in an imaginary collective landscape upon which there are several different layers superposed in form of a trompe I'oeil. It would be like an encyclopedia reviewing the captivated images, which we have already made our own, interrogating us about our condition through the object as an archetype as well as its rectification: the rectification of the image that is.



We have invented ways and manners to fill in the cavities and disguise the cracks.

My real way of being fractures the one that I have assumed, which appears on the outside.

Virginia Woolf


By producing fissures, cracks and fragmentations I am adding, and not subtracting. And it is all of these new exercises which produce new experiences, intense experiences. This powerful and rigid geometry is, in many senses, an extreme architecture related ontologically with extremes; and what all of these states have in common is the sudden precipitation of breaking. And it is in that fragmentation and dismantling where the chipping is no longer an object of representation, but has become a mark of sensitivity upon appearance of a hidden substance.

I choose rockwool and I sublimate that industrial material trying to convert the show case of broken and shattered glass into an element without any weight, like dust that covers the density and connection of things, of bodies, like wool that makes colours become opaque and turns them into things.

From dust to the landscape.

By disfiguring the object and the sign an unexpected strategy is generated -that of fragmentation, a wound or whatever is missing- but as a new quality that adds to it. It is as if the object, by itself, is degraded to being a thing, and with the chipping the possibilities come to the surface. The object in question will not be what it is, but instead, and above all, what it will be transformed into.

The bond that exists in this case between the objects and the photo narrations cannot be considered as an end in itself, but rather serves instead as a proposal to connect or to show a space that had been activated and recomposed.

Perhaps by this approach we can foretell in a better way the original qualities of the actual object, of its architecture, but also and above all, of the action that we exert on it.

The models we use, and this does in fact seem more evident today rather than before, need to be recomposed after their demolition. This twisted chassis, these dehiscent objects could in fact replace our ancient ruins; and this should not surprise us since these have been a reoccurring genre in the history of art. This idea depicts and synthesizes traditional ways of dismantling and resistance.

Take a wooden chair; break it up without losing a single splinter; put it back together and leave it in the same place again.

An object that has been cut into pieces .and stuck together again is always in some sort of tension and permanent uncertainty; but it is in this way, according to Derrida, how he was able to construct it in the best way as these incidental objects help him to reconstruct the idea of what is tangible.



These were at one stage domestic objects, everyday objects that changed their state and notion and were brought to a place where they could exist by moving inside the emptiness, changing into another object more restless and irrepressible. And the means by which to learn from them was to divide them into units, into fragments; in such a way that they could later be put back together carefully again, sticking each of the pieces together in a strange sort of disfiguration and taking in what would be the sensitive qualities, those that surprise us. Furthermore, it is a way of speaking about what is imperfect and we all know that the more incomprehensible something is, the more imaginative we become as we construct it. A deliberate disorder that will perhaps never completely satisfy us, but which, instead, stimulates our desire and triggers off our speculation. Any dismemberment or accident has Faustic connotations and therefore, obviously artistic ones with regards to the untouchable piece of work.

I like the idea of reaching that physical and extreme limit where the object cracks, where the premise of entropy questions the organization of the work, therefore changing that dismemberment into a potentially profitable state, into entropic objects.

Any structure can be altered, combined or interchanged transforming as an object its own nature in this way. And even one wanted to construct a homogenous entity without any cracks, the exercise of repairing it and reconstructing it would be of vital importance since it would also help us to reconstruct the world.

Open up spaces inside me, even if they are only narrow cracks. The aim here would be to demonstrate all the pieces that compose it, like the bricks in a building, taking it down piece by piece and then giving a meaning to the bricks with the cement that joins them together: "Pieces that provoke the disorder of our senses" as Rimbaud said. Pieces prone to fragmentation.

The object takes place as if it should be broken. I pretend to be unaware that my gaze can cause its death, and for that reason, the only thing left for me to do is to break the object up into a thousand and one pieces.

This is a difficult task because cracking or chipping encourages resistance or yielding in order to impose their own limits.

We metabolise the breakage as part of our own disorder; and in this way we try to recompose it, taking part in it, expressing and making these same cracks visible, endeavouring their repair or dehiscence. In this way the object heals us and explains itself to us.



By reconstructing the world; man reconstructs himself

Karl Marx


Nothing is made of a single piece.

Unstable architectures made of sandstorm stone designed as necessary back doors or exits, destabilized and instigating innovation.

These stone doors are, above all, the incomplete condition of the object and its most stimulating dimension, that of its condition of being an event; that is, they act as the part of the object that is missing in order for it to be complete. The mere act of fragmentising and dislocating the object is an act of bravery in itself, since you are trying to challenge its physical laws, and as a result produce a tension that is maintained and which emerges upon trying to stick certain pieces together with the rest. This should in fact be an essential premise in the act of dehiscence of the fragments, almost a hidden programme. There is no stable textual object; each object is created over again each time it is divided.

We recognize the world more not through its totality, but in its parts, pieces, refuse and reflections; we are no longer able to recognize what is essential. Perhaps we are less inside the world than we are in ourselves. This question about the ritual is, from my way of thinking, one of the most interesting questions about the substitution of the object of interpretation for another different one; one which, at the same time, continues to be the same object in itself. It is an act of choice; something has or will have a new condition. The doors of sandstorm, although apparently normal in size and shape, produce the anxiety of a broken and recomposed object since they have been destroyed, erased or suppressed at some stage. And in this there is something of a mystery.

Perhaps we will have to amplify distort or exaggerate experience in order to make it more corporal and visible.



The problem is not how to put new and innovating ideas into one's head, but how to get the old ones out.

Dee Hock

One cannot live without an eraser:

Gregory Bateson


This would be the great question which advanced art should be able to stand up

to: the elimination of traces. And this does not mean letting time trap you, or creating either a style or taste or manner: This contemporary question remains without an answer whilst we foil to discover the almost ontological dimension of a trace. Erasing traces until we reach the limits where space changes radically. Heidegger


The understanding of reality cannot be found merely inside the world of objects.

These erasers could be a metaphor of the erosion of the making up and breaking down of the world, a precarious material on the verge of dissolution, carrying out the reduction in the mass of the object, a phenomenology of the endangered body.

There are no intrinsic differences between them all, they can only be distinguished by their scale and shape, but their substance is one, as if they were separated, each one of them, like a nugget of gold.

We are not talking about the volume, but rather about the emptiness, about what is not there, about what is missing. This could be called a laboratory of experiments for methods of recycling. This emptiness, or what is missing, is the actual source of innovation because it is undetermined; it is in itself an active plastic medium: to make a hollow in a stone in order to inhabit it.

The objects that we recognize have left their mark on us, and remain in our memory. These paradigmatic objects that form a part of this collective memory erase and eliminate symbolic space, since this memory cannot be trusted completed.

Memory makes us see reality fragmented, in pieces, and in the end, I think that art should function in the same way as a rubber: like objects that surrender and receive, not as a space that imposes itself:

To erase is to become detached.



Narrative images transformed or a strange simulation of a board game and stools converted into a table for sharpening knives: images captured that lay down the guidelines of what could be the meaning of converting optimism into danger:

These objects of domestic appearance confuse us and make things complicated; they are not meant for use, but for keeping distances: they show us proximity and remoteness, position and scale.

Not only are we trying to depict the scene of the game, but to recreate and reinvent the actual experience itself in the work, maintaining a great reluctance to be deciphered and classified. A table for sharpening knives or a games table because the game would be triggered off at the least cut or scrape; that is to say it would serve as the trigger to set off the narration.

To sharpen is to clear the mass in favour of the space, that way the object would be put into evidence once again.



The weakest can only be penetrated and eroded by the strongest. The three objects -knife, chains and whetstone-, converted here in design sign and challenge the guaranteed myth of the sculpture as the weight, the volume and the corporal tangibility. What is at stake here in the same way as with the rest of the objects is, in reality, not only the changing of an object to a sign or an icon but also the role that this plays in the process of ideological questioning. The intention being to reconventionalise this principle, giving the object an iconic dimension defined not only by its morphological structure, but also as a vehicle of questioning. These are objects that appear to be strangely animated, as well as servile and subversive.

The different changes of scale and size in the chains, based on paradoxes and extremes, are inevitable in order to correct the balance as well as being essential and an absolute necessity so as to reach unity in the difference: from the small knife and its fine silver chain to the thickest and most distant chain. If we fail to recognize the motive of this fluctuation in the change of size or its weight in grams, and the reasons for these extremes, we will only be able to observe its external expression.

Let us say that the less foreseeable it is, the more disturbing the work becomes, and I think that this is essential: it should not be anticipated before it is seen.

The game of scale and measurement appears in several of the works, such as Cabeza Borradora or Dust Bowl. I wanted to put together inside the same object this change of proportion as if it moves further away from our vision, but remains at the same time very near. The biggest and the smallest no longer define an opposition, but define instead an implication; the oxymoron of two composed concepts that are paradoxicaliy possible and which complement each other.



The knife that cuts is a mythical symbol, a symbolic system of one body over another:

According to a poem by Trakl, to poeticize is to hew over and over again, with the same astonishment as the first time, the earth with a knife to make its fertile blood gush out at the same time as the universe breathes.

I understand the precarious nature of the object; and in this way, the beginning of the cut appears here not only as a sculptural procedure, but also as a gesture that stimulates. For that reason I choose a substratum of chocolate as a material which gives, which can be cut up, which can be moulded, like an underlying body that recalls that of a human being, and furthermore bestowing it, with a dimension and an iconic quality related with generosity as it is a type of food which is linked to shared happiness.

I like the idea that with art you can convert anything into an icon into objects that are vehicular; objects in which the spectator can confide. I like art that seduces; and communication is always an art of seduction. And that would mean granting a privilege to this ritual.



Upon hitting the fine metal sheets like in the description of a structure or chassis an action is generated in a micra-ritual way disfiguring the body and the sign. To assume that blow on the printed images is to assume that decontrol and to incite the unlearning that makes it possible -as far as I believe- to relive art in that exact moment of inflection and climax. They remind us graphically of certain images of the 'Sex Pistols demolishing their guitars on the floor; or Richard Serra throwing molten lead anta the comers of the museum. By beating those cutting edges waves are produced inside the space or; rather; a change in the range of the folds and scratches that finally fold into infinite formations. In this way the wrinkles and projections appear that respond to the different gestures of each beat favoring the physical action and also, that of the senses; a process of doubling the generosity of the accidental image of a slow choreography between the hands and the knife, forming visible folds and sinuous wrinkles in the skin. Described as a blow, it could also be the wrapping of the first over the next, creating a transition towards a new harmony of scraping and its regenerative power; dents that establish structures and rigid relations that inject uniformity to the metal by drawing with the burnishing and scratches.

Could the violent gesture of a blow be understood as a punishment or as public reprehension towards art for having been misunderstood, for having lost something perhaps, at some stage, its own space for a dialogue?