In my first reflections concerning the artistic act, I debated in understanding the true essence of art. Why are some things artistic and others not?. Why are they so for someones and not for others?
I deduced that in this discussion, two subjects intervene: the art work itself and the people who judge it. The key is in the interaction of both; art is not a tangible thing, it’s a sensation, an experience, a spark of intuitive knowledge that is produced in specific people facing specific pieces, at specific moments. “Artistic objects does’t exist but artistic experiences and appropriate objects to provoke them”
In fact, it seems as if there are pieces (objects, spaces, actions, sounds, texts…) conceived to provoke these (artistic) experiences. Even a series of individuals specialized in creating them: the artists. These people are capable of capturing these experiences in reality and, in some way, (the artistic method does not exist) through a process of concretion, give it form or materialize it in their work, thus comprehending that reality.
In this manner, artistic work seems to be a media where the artist aspires to register his/her experience, which in reality is instantaneous, hoping that this experience will be reproduced in the spectator.
It becomes evident that the artistic media communication is not guaranteed; only in the best cases does the spectator achieves to interpret the artwork. It is difficult for the spectator to receive the same experiences as those of the artist in his creative process. But even with an “uncertain” interpretation, it seems that the artistic object in question can provoke in the spectator similar experiences. To perceive the artwork as an interpretation and not as an understanding of it implies, on the on hand, to accept the inviability of the communication, and a necessity of keeping it’s meaning forever present on the other. A making of it present, but not absolutely present.
I understand my artistic creation as a process in which my actions over the material provoke reactions which give me reason to think; thus I do not try to represent the past experiences, but rather to form the artwork through my actions, and therefore remain in my most absolute present. “Experience is product of received sensations, all sensations belong the the past… Only the action is present”
Nevertheless, while presenting the artwork, what appear are the actionsʼ traces: sensations, experiences, through which one has already passed.
I concluded that my artistic creation is so in the most absolute present because it does not refer to my past experiences but to my actions. This made me understand that when the spectator perceives my action, even live, their own experience is conformed through the received sensations. Even though it is an instantaneous experience, it dis not their absolute present but mine. “What you see is the past”.
To be loyal to my idea of interpretations, the spectator should create his own artistic event, take part in the piece so that it can be inserted in his most absolute present.
My intention is to create artefacts, installations which can be used as tools, as backdrops so that the interrogative actions can develop completely in the exact moment and place in which they succeed.
“Because the work of art has no life on it’s own , depending only on whom makes it live in it’s spirit. But if we see it from it’s own point of view, it needs to provoke that artistic experience; for it to be or not to be a work of art depends on being appreciated as such.“
“INTERPRETACTION: the interpretactive action” Javier Blanco,1999.