The exhibition was conceived following a single underlying thread: the idea of surface, and by extension, how surface can serve as a vehicle for giving the works meaning (direction) and depth (content). The surface in the case of this exhibit extends as far as the surface of the works themselves – the exterior of the sculpture we might say – and the surface of the exhibition, that is, the interior area where the pieces ‘are housed’ and relate with one another.

The only narrative piece in this exhibition is a 16mm film called Foro (2014). The film is about the relational dynamics that are set in motion when a group of people embark on a reproduction of one of the three models of Friederick Kiesler’s The Endless House. The idea of the film is to expose the implicit relationships between the construction of a form or space (an architectural model in this case but applicable to the sphere of sculpture) and the network of infra-relationships that make it possible for this form/space to exist – conversations, labour, circulation, etc. This piece should be seen as a prism that touches each of the pieces in the exhibition.

The film Foro also suggests the idea of the ‘model’ as the organizational axis. The Endless House was a project designed consistently within the intermediate dimension between idea and result, and as such, can be reality and projection at the same time. In the case of Carved Bone, what I’ve tried to do is play with the ‘model’ of the exhibition by arranging the works that are definitive, that is, final, and others that have been made specifically to create a complete environment. There is a tension between the finished object and the pieces produced in direct response to the finished object. This dialogue is fundamental in my process, creating a ‘model’ of sculptural operation in which production and process are called into question.

The distribution of the objects evokes a kind of invisible checkerboard (drawn on the ground). Except for a single sculpture displayed on a pedestal, all of the works were placed directly on the floor to harmonize the experience between the objects. In revenge, this allowed me to weave a series of relationships in which the objects quarrel over their autonomy. In other words, spatial limits but also referential limits between each piece. Thus, my intention to (almost) group objects and (almost) erase the limits between them. As I said before, what I want to do is create spaces to circulate making the exhibition like a rotating environment.

To finish up, I shall return to the idea of surface. When I say that surface is the single underlying thread, my intention is to imagine an exhibition where the circulation (or administration if you will) of material and the capacity of a formal object to project a somatic dimension – think the post-war paintings by Alberto Burri or Fontana for example – is at the centre of the experience. Each object produced for this exhibition is the result of different states of formal transformation. The exhibition as such is the display of these phases and cycles in more or less explicit ways. Thus, some of the works are more open, others more sedimentary and some even only half packed.