I insist here on the profound value I give to the arbitrary as an authentic salvation from inextricable or poorly fruitful creative situations, which apparent logic and applied reasoning offer.

Goodbye sad coherence, hello arbitrary art

For several years I have distinguished two main areas necessary for my activity: the laboratory, which is totally private, and the stage where the public production takes place. I include in this second space the rehearsals with the performers. They can of course be called actors broadly speaking, but they are also the first discoverers of the fruits of a solitary research that it would be improper to reduce to a phase of writing a text.

In my case, it is a natural and permanent interaction between the appearance of words destined for the stage and the conceptions of the contexts in which they are uttered or which they themselves provoke. To represent, then, is for me to make the witnesses of the "pieces" coming out of my forge collide - in the sense that sculptors and musicians understand it.

They are the physically stable bodies, the pivots of my installation, around which I push actors and spectators to turn. In this way, I seek to create a 3D psychic representation in the mind of those who play, watch and hear. The modelled forms commonly produced nowadays by graphic animation software would be a good illustration of this. All my energy - for the last 10 years that my theatrical form has been deeply defined - has been devoted to bringing this prototype to life, perfecting it and getting it accepted.

Day after day, I finally conceive a theatre of synthesis, not to say of substitution, compared to the one made of the materials of traditional thought.

The rotary aspect of my vision, even if it may seem only virtual, is very important to me, if only because of the mental images it provokes, such as " beating about the bush" or " to go around the question ". It is also a physical dynamic that I frequently use during rehearsals or workshops in which I want to instil and make my thoughts understood. In short, I approach my subject in a circular, concentric and voluminous way and try to give a similar perception to the outside witnesses, because this is my mind structure.

I deeply desire that spectators and actors, whom I place on an equal footing in front of my work, keep from our presence a manufactured object, a reusable thought module, a conceptual system open source, more tangible than the mere memory of an event.

All creation is the result of arbitrary orientations and choices

Another main geographical line of my working method is the use of an imaginary backwards. Like the archaeologist of my own production, it is always a question of going back to the course of what is extracted from my brain, to reconstitute from a few starting elements the city or the buried tomb which, in the end, constitutes the true creation. I therefore consider that if I have something to invent - as they say for a treasure - it is certainly the understanding of my own essence, of my unconscious civilization, in order to allow me to discover my buried projects. And as with any interpretation made from rare elements found during an instinct-driven excavation, the result reflects the arbitrariness of the choices that led to it. (cf. Approach)

By deciphering my fossil bins, I organize the structure of my chimera to come.

In my conception, the invention has already taken place, even though the question is how to bring it into being. It is a matter of looking within oneself, where it may well be crystallizing at moment x. This conception leads me to naturally consider that all creation is first and foremost dejection, excrement that it would be harmful to keep in oneself for too long and that every creator must constantly propel out of his own body.

I insist here, in passing, on the profound value I place on the arbitrary - if it really exists - in my approach, as a tangible trigger and often a real salvation from the inextricable or poorly fruitful creative situations that apparent logic and applied reasoning offer.

It is very often under the cover of arguments of a sad coherence that conformism and standardized submission tempt the creator who refuses to hear the instinct that would push him to go beyond these markers. I would even go so far as to denounce the feeling of guilty shame of a desire for emancipation that very often stigmatizes the authors and claims the charms of naturalistic fiction or of the "concrete" scenario, a guarantee of quality for standard productions - a fantasy aspiration of the professional apprentice.

Many spectators, whose demand for apparent balance is subject to the same prohibitions, are unfortunately often led astray by the very common drift of the quest for "harmonious creation".

This taste for academism, as it is really called, may seem to be an inevitability of each era, an obligatory passage for consciences that like to curl up in a comfort that is maternal for the spirit, in order to give themselves a little latitude before agreeing to face the inevitable evolutions of our societies. One century after another confirms this, but if he can only bow to this state of affairs on the scale of his environment, it is up to a creator of forms to constantly track down and isolate his own propensity for conformism and complacency with regard to his peers, in order to brutally execute him without warning and maintain within him the little civil war proper to the duality of the awakened individual.

Erection of the art-bite-traire and election of the free gesture

From this point of view, the counter-revolution represented by the erection of arbitrariness as an intimate value must pose a salvific threat to the soft consensus of the feeling of a democratic balance in art. This is an essential point for me. Art cannot accept the balance towards which it nevertheless wants to strive. The two fundamentally antinomic poles in the same being, that is, the citizenship of its "individual" part and the singularity of its "artist" part, can only create a permanent paradoxical arc, unable to sacrifice to either of the main forces of attraction without profoundly weakening it, tainting it or condemning it to the dissolution of its principles, from one end to the other

Thus citizen art is as much a threat to the state of creation as terrorism is to the security of our everyday lives.

This is my intimate conviction and the deep feeling of an inner movement. Anyone wishing to understand my work cannot do so without first accepting this paradox. From this personal situation stems a discourse and proposals that are sometimes misunderstood by institutions that are nevertheless in charge of studying the twists and turns at the heart of contemporary art. I would like to make this pathway as clear as possible, because it has never been my concern to end up in a sterile clash between my mind and those of my interlocutors.

Those who would like to understand a little more easily the meaning of my artistic approach, especially with regard to theatre, will find some additional explanatory elements in a video interview conducted by Guillermo Blanco in October 2017, in the section Pedagogy : Principle and method.