other writings /

Julie Baranes - Alejandro Cesarco / NYC - June 5th - 2001 /--------------------------------

Julie Baranes: Since your work is responding to language and based upon your interpretation of language and its history, could I give you the three words - influences / language / reception - and get your response to them?

Alejandro Cesarco: I think they pretty much sum up my work. it’s like a synthesis, a summary of the work. They basically define the parameters in which the work functions in. What I have been trying to do in my work , which might seem an impossibility or a contradiction, is to form a language of influences, of proper names; in spite of not being sure that proper names function as such; since they are obviously already in a system of difference. What I mean is that identity is a result of differentiation from all other elements. Every signifier only functions by referring to other signifiers, never reaching a signifier that refers only to itself. So you could say that every element is marked by the traces of all those it is not, and therefore bares their trace or influence. In language proper names are only suppose to refer, not to mean, but they obviously carry meaning anyway.

So you are talking about a system?

Yes, language functions as a system: predetermined or inherited as Saussure would say, or as a set of rules in a more Chomskian fashion; but to me my work functions more like a door. A system tends to have a conclusion, or at least a “correct” way to go through it. I think the work tends to be more open than that.

You have been using sculptural terms to describe your work, such as a door, a vessel, a container. Yet, there seems to be a specific use of surface and flatness in the way you present and conceptualize language.

Basically, the idea is that the work tends not to have depth and just be reflective, flat, all the meaning is constructed outside of the work. What I meant by door, is that it is a passage to a symbolical order and that meaning is constructed in the symbolical order and not in the work. In spite of the work being of course part of this symbolical order. It can also be thought of as a receptacle, container, matrix or khora to use a more Derridean term.
So, going back to the first question, reception becomes really about the role of the viewer, not so much about what he sees but what he understands. I am not trying to make any absolute or definitive statements, and what I tend to realize more and more is that it is not so important what I say but more who I say it to. The idea that the work must add information is a very “early-conceptual” almost vanguardist notion. And even though my work clearly has a point of view I think that to make art is really an attempt at getting people to like you more. I think that is the ultimate strategy. As naïve or simple as that may sound.

You seem to be talking about seduction, but I have the objection that your work may appear a little dry.

I wouldn’t mind making more beautiful work, but somehow I don’t. Then again, the idea of beauty is always very tricky. Seduction for Baudrillard means to divert someone from the truth. Seduction is never really accomplished, it is not its aim, its aim is simply to regenerate itself. The production of art is a way of manifesting that, of calling someone’s attention, of starting or continuing a conversation with someone, of just having certain people around.

And humor?

Yes, that’s important too. I think it is part of the entertainment value of the work. It’s like a little hook, part of the seduction game. It might even take the place of beauty. And it is also about laughing about myself, trying not to take myself so seriously.

You were saying that you are not interested in making absolute statements, but it seems that a lot of work refers to you as the author; are you questioning this notion of authorship?

I think that works somewhat like a loop, because when you try to get away from the idea of authorship, you are making it more apparent so it is a bit like deceiving yourself. Obviously I am producing the work and I am putting as much as I can into it, if not it becomes this pure marketing strategy and I am not very much into that, and again, going back to the informational aspect of conceptual art, I think neo-conceptualism has a lot to do with infiltrating the work with biographical references. At the same time, I don’t think I am really making any new, original statements, I am just making connections.
I would like to think of the work as being very generous and very entertaining. I don’t know if I achieve that but I would like the work to be described that way. What I’m trying to say is that the viewer becomes or needs to become this very active participant.

Wouldn’t you say however that by using language in visual arts you are already reducing your audience?

First I’d like to say that by having only words in visual art, the work becomes more abstract and reverses the process of comprehension, that ultimately must always pass through language. And secondly, yes there is a fear of becoming absolutely elitist, closing the amount of people I am reaching. I am not sure what the way around this is. Maybe Gonzalez-Torres, Tiravanija and Orozco are good examples of people that have found a strategy around it.
I also think it is important for me to point out that I don’t just make work with text, nor do I want to limit myself to that or be catalogued as that. In any case your question is probably pertinent to conceptualism in general.

Would you like to comment on your position as curator?

I have only done a very limited amount of projects. And again, I have been really selfish. I really like the work of Felix Gonzalez-Torres, I wanted to do a show of him, and I did. It was obviously about having the work be seen in Montevideo where only a very small art group of people knew about it; but it was also about the pleasure of physically dealing with the work, installing the work, almost to the point of appropriating the work. Basically, curating is just another medium; the aims or strategies don’t necessarily have to change.

Working with influences is not just evoking a reference but really taking into account what the work is and who the person is and this relates to the way you are exploring appropriation.

All that is important, but it is the job of the viewer. Spelling everything out is almost too much work. And it is not about being lazy, it is more about not wanting to reach definitive conclusions, of not wanting to abuse my authority as author, about not wanting to preach, or become didactic.
I find that with influences, things that I like, I generally can’t imitate, I can’t repeat or don’t want to repeat. I am not interested in copying things. It is more about getting things out of context and using them for my purposes
Possibly my work is like a thank you letter or a ladder, where I am stepping on my influences permanently. I also think that I’ dealing with this idealized “future” viewer that already knows more than I do because he’s already lived tomorrow, read and seen more than I have. So there is no real sense in explaining the reasons why I like the work of Gabriel Orozco or Maurizio Cattelan. Naming them or using their work is enough. I am interesting in the idea of superficiality and reflectiveness and making connections on that level.

There is an edginess in your work that is quite intriguing. You are being very generous and at the same time don’t seem to be offering a lot. Almost like being pretentious and coward at the same time. Do you agree?

You might be right, and I feel I should probably defend myself but I’m not sure how. I think it has to do with an intention of leaving things as sketches, almost unfinished, and I’m not referring to the formalities of the work but something that has more to do with a space or an entrance point for the other. An open body of work that promises a lot but does not produce answers.

Julie Baranes is an independent curator from Paris currently living in New York who has received graduate level degrees in French Literature from the Sorbonne University and in Studio Art/Photography from New York University.