“Return to Multiverso” se trata de una nueva versión de “Multiverso”, una acción anterior de la artista Marta Pinilla. En “Multiverso”, los performers acababan de atravesar un agujero negro y se encontraban en una universo paralelo. En este universo, habían perdido parte de su humanidad, en el sentido que habían perdido parte de lo que nos hace humanos y poseían esa característica propia de lo siniestro, que provoca atracción y rechazo al mismo tiempo. Los nuevos seres (o “bichos”), se transformaban en observadores de la realidad, a la vez que ellos eran el objeto de investigación.

Intentaban comunicarse, relacionarse con los humanos que encontraban en el camino y poseían un lenguaje propio basado en el propio sonido que producen los trajes. En posteriores acciones de la artista esta idea original se ha ido diluyendo a media que los bichos se han ido haciendo más humanos. Ahora es fácil verlos escribir a máquina, conectándose a la web o montando en bicicleta.

Art brings great value to society, from beauty to ideas and discourses that are not dealt with in other areas. Nevertheless, the promotion of the arts is still in crisis and institutions are washing their hands of it. Art seems to be superfluous in this society just when we need it most.

Thus, artists are forced into double precariousness. The labour market in which they are forced to participate in order to survive and the art “market” itself, which mistreats them and uses them as ephemeral products.

Do the work no longer necessary since Duchamp proposed his first ready-mades. Any object out of context could become art. Everyday ordinary objects rise to special status when are used in an artistic manifestation. But this art requires an infrastructure to exist.

Art has become into a luxury that feeds a voracious market hungry for news, and that gives value to the objects by rhetoric. Money is the true philosophy of so-called contemporary art.

Fortunately art has not died. The production is massive and obsolescence of the works overwhelms. At this point is inevitable to ask the same question that Duchamp a century ago when he presented his emblematic work: What we consider art?

Dialogue about egocentrism of artists

The debate on the usefulness of art is vague. But there is one thing clear: “art is not only a decorative object” or a speculative act. There is something more, you need to have something more. Soul, sentiment, connections, discussions, messages, thoughts and as many as human beings are capable of feeling.

In this way, using art as an excuse, it confronts the classic formats with the human body to lay claim to the performance as the art which it is. Only the essence of the human being.

The public display of a naked body can be titled Exhibitionism, even though everything depends on the degree to which it is granted.

I just want to use my body as a weapon to stir the consciences. The premise of my naked body as a blank canvas allows me to express my ideas. With this premise, I propose a series of dialogues that require an observer to start.

Exhibiting myself I become an exhibitionist but one must remember that there is no exhibitionism without voyeur.

A non-performance by Miguel Andrés.

Fountain takes as start point the eponymous and iconic work of Duchamp. Doing a face-to-face with such famous piece to generate a dialog through time and between artists.

The urinary comes alive in a mirror. In this point object transforms into subject of action to give continuity to the work. Ready-made turns into performance to raise the same question almost a century later: What do we consider art?