OUT OF TIME
While practicing sculpture, undecipherable questions often arise, to which answers are not usually found during its course. Time and space are foundations inherent to the essence of sculpture; considered either as a static object, as a dynamic experience or simply as a process entailing the temporality of its development, sculpture must be set within a place and a context, because for us it is essential for its real location. Place, context, presence, are intrinsic notions affecting the topicality and the visibility of the object, as long as it appears as a reality which stands out from the rest, as an entity fighting for the present, in a way showing that it belongs to a certain space and time.
Our concern agrees with Stephen Hawking’s answer when he was asked about the present in the theory of relativity; he said that it is similar to a sign by a road. Therefore, setting parameters and indicating points in our wandering around the time and space arises from the necessity we pointed out; except if wandering off is a deliberate condition with the specific aim of avoiding a demarcation which is limited and compressed by its licit posting of signs.
We polarize these two words, which are in some way complementary, when not contradictory, because our thoughts and our movements from one place to another usually pass between them. For roaming, wandering, going, climbing, moving away, walking, are all synonyms of searching, of a movement in pursuit of some aim so far unknown, of the need to undertake the creation of something nonexistent, of anxiety seeking its satisfaction within new things or wishing to find its identity in some unknown place. Yet contemplating, resting, thinking and staying put are also synonyms which converge on the will to extract knowledge from experience, to abstract the essence of the whole thing, that which symbolizes totality even without representing it in detail.
Moving between the two mentioned poles does not mean that we must linger in one or tirelessly jump from one to the other. The sense of time and space is not established by absolute notions, but by relative ones. Saint Agustin said, so long ago, that “time is nothing but an expansion”. And it would be surprising to find that time was not spirit itself. That intangible spirit which amasses feelings and sensations obtained from and with the experience of one’s own body, that lived notion which certainly reassures the relativity of space and time, could in some way turn those perceptions into a tangible and “object like” matter.
Transforming the past into the present and recalling other moments in our memory in order to rescue them from the edge of oblivion; “living” future with the perspective of someone wishing to find out the future; or to arrive at a moment in the past that assures us of our identity, which has not been diluted in the rush of movement, are always aspirations that art has tried to state or show to themselves, from the particular language of each one of them.
This collection is motivated by a desire which is preceded by the need to consider sculpture as an experimental possibility, to understand it as a means that allows us to investigate certain zones of being, to consider the object as an artefact which is able to mediate between the stimulus and the disorder of that being and the necessity to organize the perceived feelings. Our hope (we dare not mention the results) has been to position ourselves in an ambiguous, border place: in that place where every notion which, reviled because of its “uselessness” (like art itself), does not converge on the whole system so that, from that location, we can establish a way of thinking sculpture which compels us to move between the wish to reveal the unknown through provocation and chance, and the pressing need to condense the acquired knowledge in order to define it within the stillness of the object.
In doing so, our behaviour changes, becoming simultaneous with respect to our interpretation of the object. The situation in which we face the object also becomes relative in spite of its definition as it is and its successful internal coherence. From within itself, the object does not anymore just “talk” about itself but points towards other places, other objects, other fantasies. In doing so the possibilities of growing, not upwards nor downwards, not forwards nor backwards are multiplied, and, like a delta, it scatters, invades and fertilizes every territory it happens to humidify in its advance. We want to therefore establish that everything that remains at the margin does not necessarily remain out of context, separated from reality; firstly, because it obviously belongs to reality as soon as it is formed as a negative of reality, and secondly, because in that supposedly non representative situation throbs the paradox.
As the result of this, the ironic side of reality arises. Freud discovered this border aspect ―insisting is not necessary― and the surrealists used it as a source. It is still of interest to us, not because of surrealist idealism and neither because of psychoanalytic observations, but for the realism of obviousness as a receptacle of the symbolic.
The limit is understood to be something similar to a confluence of contradictions, a no-man’s-land where it is still possible to reflect and learn about oneself. It is conceived as “a space which is tense and conflictive, of meditation and connection”.
That space/time, which symbolizes the essence and upon which we intervene, becomes a point of reception. From its characteristics as determining factors, the discourse begins to unite and define its internal structure. We should say that this is its way of becoming apparent. Hence diversity becomes necessary as a point of inflexion among the objects themselves. Seriality as a constant and obsessive repetition, as a lineal movement towards a single direction is avoided; rather, we are interested in sinuosity, in the ambiguous doubt of the vague terms of the statement. We believe that it will bring us unequal results pointing simultaneously towards various directions, turning the creative fact into a practice for reflection, and even for self-knowledge.
We do not believe that we are searching for a lost time, but reinventing it, rescuing the value of its uselessness for sculpture. By referring to its multiple connections with reality through that digression, we believe that we are capable of knowing it without filters, unmarking interferences and by proposing an unprejudiced approach. In doing so, sculpture fulfils its role as a mediator, as an agent of knowledge. Sculpture does not enclose knowledge, but makes it possible. Knowledge is not revealed, because by being a mysterious object, it is veiled. Sculpture does not give its mystery away. It is precisely this mystery which worries us, which spurs us on to scour the labyrinth, and which motivates the urge to decipher it; during this course, it allows us to access the contemplation of our movements, which is similar to nearing one’s own knowledge.
When sculpture, in the same way as other objects, and even other silent beings, tries to subvert, or at least makes us reconsider our perception of reality and is complicit with its own weaknesses, it remains out of time, it remains offside. To do so, it must not work as a cultural substitute; it must be established away from an imposed productivity. It must endeavour to flow seeping into the cavities the hidden nooks of ignorance and insensitivity; creating in its will images of interest and even delight. Thus redirecting life to reconcile ourselves with our wickedness.