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. The Zócalo's monumental size makes the human scale seem
insignificant, a fact that some Mexican scholars consider an emblem
of a monolithic political legacy; there are almost one thousand
protests a year in this site and yet its scale drowns most of them.
In order to have an impact on this square it was necessary to deploy
very powerful equipment. Despite the power of the installation my
intention was a quiet, slowly fluctuating space for reflection in
a city that does not need any more aggression.
Shall the project make a special contribution for a new "better"
public space? And what importance in that context has the use of
work attempts to introduce alien memory as an urban catalyst. We
use large-scale technologies of amplification that are usually reserved
for special something. It is always exciting to exploit them in
ways they were not intended. I think work in public space should
destabilize these prefabricated stereotypes. Technology is inseparable
from contemporary identity I think artists use technology explicitly
as a way to understand and criticise from within some of the paradoxes
of our culture.