I am interested in how we build interconnected structures of many different types: digital interfaces, global tourism, art markets, meme cultures. Any of these structures has many scales of effect, forming technological planetary stacks. They shape identities, geographies, urbanism, ecologies, economies, etc., in an interdependent, complex way. They interface, as a verb, with each other.
The term interface means ‘contact surface’, and it is commonly used to designate the devices or spaces that allow interacting and communicating between various systems. This concept so present in our tech landscape can be traced back to Aristotle, who in his theory of perception defines two elements, air and water, as tò metaxú, that is, ‘what is in between’, the medium. Today, this ‘air’ in which we live and relate, is flooded by WiFi waves, invisible signals that we are only able to perceive and decipher thanks to sophisticated cybernetic prosthesis.
Every ‘contact surface’ (like public space, a parliament, a cinema, our personal computer, or an exhibition space) is a point of friction, in which conflicts, desires, and power relations intersect. Contrary to air or water, technological interfaces are never natural nor neutral (like often are presented), but embed in themselves the ideologies and beliefs of the people and institutions that have built them.
My practice roams around these ‘contact surfaces’, how they are built, how they relate, and how they could be. Can artistic practices help us make better sense of these kinds of complex hyperobjects?