This exhibition is an exercise, an essay in the creation of a form that activates a group of works, some of them made previously - over the last five years - and others conceived specifically for the installation. As an approach, it should not be understood as a mere presentation strategy, but rather as part of the thematic-structural development of the works themselves.

My usual way of working begins with the compilation of certain signs, images, fragments of texts, words, figures, etc. This collection is not casual, but interested; each of the elements has had to become an "attractor", to represent a movement of desire that, in its indeterminacy, has ended up settling on one of these signs. For some time, nothing happens in this process until, by chance, a reaction begins; some of the elements take on importance and others are relegated, some seek a relationship with others at the same time as several of them repel each other, seek their distance, connections and chains are generated, the work begins to take shape as a "proliferation".

In the flow thus created, the problem is to obtain form, to bring into play a will to articulate. But this will implies a double movement: a more immediate one, the one imposed by the logic of meaning: everything must flow towards an end, the proliferation must be appeased, it must be delimited, it must adopt some framework where the flow can be contained, where the pure connection of the elements takes a direction. On the other hand, desire imposes the need for the device that limits it, at the same time, to overflow it; desire tends to succumb to the pure proliferative flow.

This double movement, inward and outward, is configured within a form that at other times I have called "bad form", a form that is deficient and incomplete as well as necessarily exuberant, different from what is normally understood as "good form", the gestalt form, perfectly identifiable, closed and full.

Today's work of art is already far removed from the fullness that has often been claimed for works of art. In fact that fullness was indebted to a metaphysics of presence that Kant elaborated by clearly distinguishing what was the "work" (ergon) from what was not, as well as from the undefined stages (parergon) - for example the frame of paintings - that contribute to the work, positively or negatively, but which are not a work.

Derrida will take this notion of the parergon and highlight the constant struggle between an inside and an outward thrust that makes the parergon an undecidable (work-not-work) that works hiddenly and actively for the unleashed energy that is the work of art. Derrida, deconstructively, rarefies the traditional idea of the limit materialised in the parergon, eliminating the supposed evidence of the limit between the painting and the frame, between the frame and the wall, the inside and the outside, between the accessory and the substantial, between the work and its discourses, between the particular form and the rest of the known forms. Thus, the work of art will not be a perfectly defined totality, a full presence, but will be constituted by a nucleus that is never found, a lack that seeks to be completed outside itself.

And what about meaning? Can meaning be demanded of a work of art when it is nothing but a promise of something perpetually deferred, something that is never present in its fullness?

Meaning is demanded when the work, as G. Steiner asserts, "carries with it the scandal of its own chance", when it could always not have been - unlike the ineluctability of science, which seems to come punctually to its appointment with history (Leibniz and Newton discovering differential and infinitesimal calculus simultaneously and without knowing each other). However, the work of art is not just chance, it is form, it is a bad form, incomplete and meaningless, which seeks its fullness and its meaning outside itself, or rather in the placeless, atopic space of the parergon.

Harold Bloom states that the meaning of a poem is always another poem. The knowable - of what the work of art produces - demands a new production. The common role of the spectator and the artist is to participate actively in language games. Let no one expect values, not even ideas, but rather a movement, a mobilisation. A good work of art is one that incites to action and not only to contemplation, or to be overwhelmed by its social or historical prestige. To know a work of art is to appropriate it, to use and abuse it, until it disappears or is magnified by the onslaught. The really important works have been made over time, they were not born so great. Every time someone stands in front of one of them, a transformation takes place, every time a work of art leads to the creation of another work of art, it is marked. Behind the most intimate creative act lies a collective: that of the works that preceded us, that of our contemporaries and that of those yet to come.

The two questions linked to the idea of bad form mentioned above: structurally, its incomplete, fragmentary nature and, from the point of view of meaning, its perpetual escape into other works, my own and those of others, contemporary and from the past, and also into works to come, have marked my dedication in recent years. This exhibition puts both questions to work in the sphere of the exhibition in an exercise of coherence with the type of works that comprise it.

The materials used are basically of three types:

-A series of collages of texts and photographs, made from 2006 onwards and generically titled RSF, where they literally stage slips of meaning between plastic, literary, cinematographic works from different periods.

-Some graphics on paper belonging to the series entitled Anxiety, 2007, in which images of violence coexist with texts that deal with the creative "agon", with the artist's struggle with his predecessors.

-A group of works that include a sculptural structural element made up of fragments of an original, now unrecognisable unit, which emphasise the possibility of mentally generating equally fragmentary wholes from a kind of proliferating connectivity. Part of this group of works, entitled Una entrada mil salidas, was made in 2011 for the exhibition; those entitled Si la memoria no me traiciona 2 and 3 were made in 2008 and 2009-11 respectively.

From these materials, a device has been created whose structure, partly musical, partly poetic, is organised into seven groups, presided over by one of Anxiety's graphics, which in turn defines each of them thematically: the error of interpretation/the intentional deviation, the humiliation/the emptiness of oneself, the confrontation of equals, the mythical and true father, the embrace of passions, the weak idealise/the strong appropriate, the price of victory over the dead.

Each of these groups includes RSF works that are variations on the theme in the musical sense, interspersed by the more sculptural elements that act as a refrain or ritornello.

This device is materially embodied in a series of parallel wooden lines attached to the walls - although they sometimes float on them - which, while acting as a support for the "works", constitute a particular frame - neither background nor figure - that contributes to tearing apart the limits that favour the unity and fullness that convention attributes to works which, on the other hand, their own internal structure denies. A frame that frames and unframes, a parergon that works as a frame against itself.