Interview with Luis Maldonado!

This interview was conducted by e-mail in May 2007, between myself and Luis Maldonado. His branch of It's All About Things was in Chicago at the Three Walls Gallery during March 2007, which you can read more about below.

What are your influences? What movements or artists inspire your work and how do you see yourself fitting into art history and the contemporary art world?

I usually don't like to state what artists or movements are my favorites. It's too difficult and there are so many that have influenced me. I would like to start by mentioning that the history of creating things (The term “art” is so recent and problematic that it might not be a proper term to use. Maybe the term “the creating of things” should be used) since the cave era until its recent time is what influences me. I am really drawn to the history of how people create. I prefer to stay open to all forms of creating. Have it be architecture or even painting. I would favor the way an anthropologist looks at art., as to study how someone creates and why, rather than choosing a side. What also catches my attention is the differences that people claim are “good” art.

Some of my major influences are sometimes not even artists. For example: James Clifford who has written many essays based on the history of collecting art and its problems within culture. C.B. Macpherson an expert on possessive individualism and Susan Stewart who has written many essays on “longing” are also considered important within the project It’s All About Things “IAAT”.

As a person that studies and creates things I believe it’s very important to look at the larger world. The art market and its history play very important roles of course within my structure. What stands out to me as a problem within say the “contemporary art world” is how reality is created. Much of the art market is relied upon myth making. The stories and descriptions is what drives the market value up. I really question how art is perceived in a market that treats art as if it were commodity. Since I find this to be a problem I actually use it as part of the work process.

In your artist statement you talk about the title "It's All About Things" being influenced by Heidegger's essay "The Origin of the Work of Art". How does his philosophy play a role in your work? Are there other philosophies that are linked to your practice?

I would like to stress that the overall essay is more important than just specifics. In Heidegger’s essay he uses the term thing as a reference to art. What struck me when I first read the essay was how he was approaching this heavy term. Since the word was founded in the West it has been carefully placed on a pedestal and only used for specific reasons. I actually found the essay very amusing because the term thing is used by “common” people to describe basically anything and Heidegger is seriously using the term within the entire essay.

Within the project IAAT it’s a must to stay open to different value systems that people put on things. Within the Heidegger essay I feel a sense of openness that is hard to find in essays that are written around the same time. During the modern era and even up to now many people have written the parameters for what makes a work of art, but it’s usually very strict. Within Heidegger’s essay it seems very open to me and liberating.

For my work I like to read what comes my way. Some days I might read Marx, but then on others I might be reading Hegel or even essays on biology. The philosophy behind my project is very muddy because of the influences in my life. Have it be working at Christie’s auction house or even where I have lived.

"Barter Days" seemed to be a lot about the value of the "thing", so what kind of process do you go through to decide the value of both what a visitor is offering and what they would get in return, since the final exchange is determined by you? What does value mean in terms of art? Also in conjunction with this, since all the bartered objects become art, how do you define art?

Determining the value of the thing is always difficult for me because there is no set plan because the potential client is always different. I also have to disagree on the idea that I have final say because it’s a mutual agreement on both sides to produce the final result. If the person on the other side of me does not like the agreement then they don’t have to participate. They can walk away if they choose so. Part of the project at the same time is to cause this want or crave and to see what I can get for the thing. Participation can be very basic for example: walking into and around the exhibition space. But of course I want something more; I want people to want something and to give up something personal at the same time. The things received in exchange are placed in a space and treated as if works of “art”. I call it art, but other people might not which is all part of the game. There are many people I know will not call the objects I have received “art”. It’s all subjective! I believe that the experience at an event sponsored by IAAT can be art. I believe this interview can be art. The final draft of the blog made by you can be a work of art by collaboration with IAAT. It’s really endless; it can go on forever it seems. What depends on the parameters is the rules that I create and then try to break those exact rules that makes the things art.

How do people seem to respond to your work, since it deviates from the traditional expectations of an art exhibit? Also why is a participatory structure behind work like "Barter Days" so important to contemporary art practice? Does it add something that is lacking in the traditional art world?

Usually the overall response is open, but with a lot of questions. Many have asked me why this? And I usually respond why not. I don’t think what I am doing is new. What I feel I am doing, is gathering these particular worlds then combining it into something else. It’s basically sifting and then mixing!

When looking back at say Fluxus and much of the “art” of the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies the viewer participation was a necessity. The viewer at that time was thought about in a way never before. The viewer was believed to be part of the art. Say if someone walked around a Judd sculpture, the viewer actually finished the piece physically. I believe that to be a powerful statement within the art world. Since knowing this, I am very interested in giving the viewer an experience and to make people feel needed. I feel that the traditional art world lacks the devotion to bring people to participate in something. Usually it’s about the artistic genius that is portrayed within traditional art. To have some kind of communication that is deeper is what I am looking for. I don’t want to seem like a romantic because there are limitations within the term art, but I believe in these experiences can actually influence people to want change. And why can’t art do that? I believe that people that come across great art experiences no matter what kind of level, it can produce a feeling of wanting something higher within humanity. When people feel these emotions then true change happens.