 From the Construction of the Self to the
Construction of Society
In this
essay I intend to bring an analytical approach of what has been my artistic proposal in the last few years. I’ll start
with the project, “Casa del Self”, which deals with the phenomenon of the “Self” as a symbolic construction
and how I step away from the structuralist vision that it has been given in the past. Furthermore, I will mention my other
project, “Babylon”; where I extrapolate the notion of the construction of the individual Self and expand on the
construction of society.
Historically, the concept of the denominated Self
has been confusing and emotionally charged, not only in the popular language, but also in the academic, artistic and the philosophical
world. After doing some research on the subject, I found different forms of boarding the philosophy behind the Self. Among
the multiple theories, the most traditional presents the Self as a concrete natural structure that behaves and advances on
it’s own; while on the other side, there are theories that simply reject the existence of the Self all together. In
my work, I meet at a middle point. Even though I reject the traditional point of view in which the Self is an artifact with
an autonomous energy, I consider that there is a need for its construction which occurs through human action, because the
dissolution of the Self in people would be equivalent to the acceptance of the individuals invisibility and their none existence.
In regards to my work, the same concept
applies when dealing with the Self and its interaction with the Other. Its premise is how existence is questionable without
participation. To define my artwork or myself is to create a selective interpretation of what I’ve learned through my
interaction with the Other and how I see myself in that interaction. Therefore, if the philosophy of my work deals with this
subject, defining it will simply create an obstacle for its course. Which is for the viewer to create at the moment the interaction
occurs and not before.
To bring a theoretical approach to my work of the
Self, I’ve chosen the “Constructionism Philosophy” as the conceptual base. The philosophy of the Self and
the Other stems from the thought that all things need a counter or an Other to define them. In other words, concepts and things
in general (material things, identities, cultures, and social institutions, amongst others) have an objective existence not
precisely because they posses a natural essence, but because we humans constructed them through our ingenious and creativity
that emerges from our interactions through language. However, I believe this interaction does not solely come from human to
human contact but can also be achieved through different sources. For instance, in my work, the interaction between a painting
and a person may be equally important in creating that sense of self. Although I create the work, the conversation is part
taking between the painting and its viewer. In this dynamic, the viewer not only constructs the “essence” of the
piece, but also observes himself or herself constructing it. It is there, within this symbolic interaction, that the viewer
ultimately is constructed. This is the base of my work. It is the place where definition does not exist without interaction.
Accordingly, the act of creating and conceptualizing the work takes on a universal
role and not an individual right. The fact that I create the pieces does not mean that my creativity comes from an internal
gravitational force; rather, it is my belief that it is through my daily collective interactions that the work comes to life.
I also believe, that defining ones work is one of the most difficult, if not impossible, tasks an artist must face. How is
it possible to describe or explain an artistic work without it becoming a concrete idea? Personally, I understand, that what
ever I say the work is and however I describe it is not the only way to define it. The fact that the work is based on multiple
interactions in a given historical time and place, the idea of interpreting it will simply reduce its complexity. I chose
to explain the general philosophical concept of the work and not the definition of each piece or installation, so that to
breakaway from this straight-line concept where everything must have a concrete definition. My works are intended to act as
vehicles where the viewer has the choice in which direction to take them in, without imposing limits with explanations.
In my recent installation series titled “Babylon”, the theory of
Contructionism still acts as the conceptual base yet its emphasis is on Social Construction. The general project consists
of a grouping of structures built solely with found materials. Once assembled together the installations resemble a metropolis
that includes bridges, tunnels, towers and a sea of human figures traveling through its avenues. The premise now, not only
deals with the individual rather, with the construction of society and its social institutions.
In my installations, I introduce how these personae’s, through their daily actions and social agreements,
configure objectively the structures of their social and cultural world. With this in mind, Berger and Luckmann, co-authors
of “ The Social Construction of Reality”, argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, is derived from
and maintained by social interactions. When people interact they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions
of reality are related, and as they act upon this understanding their common knowledge of reality become reinforced.
Since people negotiate this common knowledge, human assumptions, and the impact of social institutions it comes to be presented
as an objective reality. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially constructed.
With “Babylon”, I am attempting to bridge the social constructions
of ancient Babylon with that of modern day society. It is well known that this ancient city of Mesopotamia became a center
of learning and scientific development. The reason I’ve chosen the dynamic of this highly developed city is so that
the viewer can relate it to their present lives in some form. But how is it possible to connect modern social construction
with that of a city from the third millennium BC? Clearly this is extremely difficult, especially when historical moments,
social paradigms and discourses are constantly changing. In my perspective, history has shown that human interaction has constructed
complex phenomenon’s, especially in those so-called advanced societies. As a result to these complexities social institutions
are formed.
It is precisely
because of the social institutions issue that I believe a link exist between Babylon and modern western society. My intention
is for the viewer to interact with the project in multiple levels, whether it is, through the obvious city-like structures
or the familiar representation of a bridge. Whether they compare Babylon’s functionalism with today’s, or it simply
makes them reflect on their position in our societies social order. An order orchestrated by social institutions that produces
a theoretical system -philosophical, moral and scientific- of legitimization. A system, that spreads through a society’s
political, economical and cultural functions, which ultimately constructs the behavior of human beings.
|
