Abajo y las excepciones


(Below and the exceptions)


For this project Lezaca inquires about the mental perception of the architectural space. In the exhibition Lezaca presents a series of facilities, with the capacity of being built in the exhibition space, which aim to disarticulate and fracture the architecture. He uses materials such as dry wall, metal, wood and rubber, materials that are usually used for the construction of ephemeral or temporary architectures. On top of these, a series of paintings, sculptures and videos appear that enter into a dialogue with the interventions and try to create crisis and instability.

The paintings presented offer speculative spaces and improbable constructions, just as in the space there appears a series of sculptures that refer to furniture and in doing so call into doubt furniture’s utilitarian character. In the exhibition one can also find a video installation in which a video sequence projects a digital representation of a closed space in which there are a series of animated objects that are building and destroying a succession of sculptures formed by fragments or residues of other objects.

La Casita is an independent space created by the initiative of the Colección Chehebar. Under the direction of the curator, Camilo Chico, an exhibition program is proposed in which the artists are invited to develop a project that establishes a dialogue with a piece from the collection.




“Some ideas are logical in their conception but perceptually illogical. Ideas need not be complex. Most successful ideas tend to appear simple because they seem inevitable. In terms of ideas the artist is free even to surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.” (Sol LeWitt)

At the moment in which I find myself writing this text, my environment is full of objects of different categories and uses: the table which supports the computer on which I am writing, the chair which holds me in a strange position, almost like an insignificant trick against gravity. I am sure that if you look up and put aside this text you will find hundreds of objects, and apart from these objects other objects that are contained within still larger objects, perhaps with a scale that surpasses your dimensions to the point that you forget that you are inside another large object, namely a building or a house.

These objects that have mostly been created by people or machines with different purposes were perhaps thought of as tools, furniture, decoration, and electric appliances or, in the most critical cases, intended as art. Well then, . . . here we stumble upon something strange that has no use . . . Well, okay, if you want to you can use art in a number of different ways, in any way you want, but surely it is not going to function in any useful way.

All these objects around us are objects due to the sophisticated artifice of language; it is the common agreement at the heart of language that allows us to call a chair a chair. But it is also language that enables another category of objects to appear; and here I am referring to mental objects. The mental picture of a chair is created in our minds without even having to touch a physical chair, almost like a perverse synesthesia in which the world is configured in our minds even before our bodies feel the force of gravity interrupted by the chair we finally sit down in. This kind of splitting of reality creates for us an unstable experimental space in which physical matter and mental matter are malleable elements that permit distortions, alterations and delusional speculations.

Perhaps the objects you have just looked at look like other objects you’ve seen, or else they remind you of something completely different. The important thing is that they still have not been named, and thus will escape the implacable look of logic and the imposed system of the nominal.

I wish to propose something: why not think in questions? —I have confidence in questions and in doubt; certainty, however, evokes, for me, distrust.

Is it possible to guarantee something? —Why? —For what? A guarantee only leads to useless and falsified answers.

Instead I propose some other questions:

Why the exact?
Why the order of things?
Why dimensions?
Why 95 x 95?
Why 50 x 95?
Why 35 x 12?

I do not believe that I am interrogating you, or even asking you these questions so that you respond to them; they are simply questions, and I prefer the dissatisfaction of the question to the supposed pleasure of the answer.


Alberto Lezaca


... Text ...