Mudanças entre as edições de "Proposta de ocupação mínimo-máximo para o espaço/en"
(soon) |
(translation) |
||
Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
− | '' | + | ='''Proposta para ocupação mínimo-máximo do espaço'''= |
+ | |||
+ | Luciana Ohira & Sérgio Bonilha | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | It can be said that "Proposta para ocupação mínimo-máximo do espaço [Proposal for minimum-maximum occupation of space]" is less a work than a field of work. Its object and symbolic condition, expandable and flexible by excellence, evidences, as already given by its title, the contradictions of an object that, when it lies and extends through space, occupies less than actually projects an occupation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Such ambiguity becomes evident when we look at the two-time experience proposed by the work. First, we encounter the simple space: the room, the walls and the floor as direct and unsuspected data, neutral elements in its symbolic indifference. In a second moment, as if by chance there thrown in a corner, as if to reiterate the contingency of the occupation performed (the site-specific-prêt-à-porter character of the situation), we come to the heart of the work in question, a wooden bag containing the clues and elements of the action performed there. Enclosure of containment and transport, it is from there that depart the lines that, from now on, we recognize as involving us from the beginning in space. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The tenuous line extended by Bonilha and Ohira in the interstices of the empty space of the institution thus ends by occupying in retrospect the very emptiness of our initial experience. As a simultaneous inflation and collapse of a financial bubble, through pure speculation, it redefines our past and future experience, stressing its abstract and sensible value between fullness and emptiness. |
Edição atual tal como às 11h22min de 2 de julho de 2017
Proposta para ocupação mínimo-máximo do espaço
Luciana Ohira & Sérgio Bonilha
It can be said that "Proposta para ocupação mínimo-máximo do espaço [Proposal for minimum-maximum occupation of space]" is less a work than a field of work. Its object and symbolic condition, expandable and flexible by excellence, evidences, as already given by its title, the contradictions of an object that, when it lies and extends through space, occupies less than actually projects an occupation.
Such ambiguity becomes evident when we look at the two-time experience proposed by the work. First, we encounter the simple space: the room, the walls and the floor as direct and unsuspected data, neutral elements in its symbolic indifference. In a second moment, as if by chance there thrown in a corner, as if to reiterate the contingency of the occupation performed (the site-specific-prêt-à-porter character of the situation), we come to the heart of the work in question, a wooden bag containing the clues and elements of the action performed there. Enclosure of containment and transport, it is from there that depart the lines that, from now on, we recognize as involving us from the beginning in space.
The tenuous line extended by Bonilha and Ohira in the interstices of the empty space of the institution thus ends by occupying in retrospect the very emptiness of our initial experience. As a simultaneous inflation and collapse of a financial bubble, through pure speculation, it redefines our past and future experience, stressing its abstract and sensible value between fullness and emptiness.