With what kind of Intention the real public urban space was chosen
as place for the project? Are everybody's accessibility all day
or public sphere
an important issue for the project?
that takes place in public space has political dimensions. My biases
are usually manifested through certain choices, but in general I
believe that one of the roles of the artist is not so much to provide
moralistic commentary but rather to create spaces for participation,
where a plurality of positions may emerge. Participation itself
is a strong political element, particularly as the public sphere
loses its claim to "represent" the people that may occupy
it. Participation transforms "special-effects" into "special-causes-and-effects"
which is more interesting from a political point of view. I am mostly
concerned with the creation, perception and occupation of public
space through the intersection between new Technologies, urban space,
active participation and alien memory. I think work in public space
should destabilize prefabricated stereotypes and foster a critical
rereading of the daily urban performance, opening opportunities
for self-representation and intervention.
It is a priority to create social experiences rather than to generate
collectible Artobjects and I prefer collective experiences.
Shall the project make a special contribution for a new "better"
public space? And what importance in that context has the use of
has deepened the crisis in urban representation. The vast majority
of buildings constructed today no longer represent local inhabitants
or concerns. "vampire buildings" are forced to be immortal
due to "architectural correctness" they are kept