5.The project’s first manoeuvre is to deviate a lair, turning it into a Labyrinth, and a Labyrinth into a lair. The second emphatically contravenes the first. It proposes to take a detour with no possibility of movement or goodness knows what else. The last manoeuvre is the deliberate destruction of the Detour: the presence in the exhibition space of an object whose weight, metallic density, right-angled structure and the scale of its meticulous modulation, allows no other deviation than the return to oneself.
(Eugenio Dittborn, 2013)
If the spectator is essential as the agent whose presence activates the work, then he/she is equally important in the sense that his/her body becomes part of the device. What differentiates this labyrinth from the thousands that have been built or are present throughout history is that the building is transparent; it doesn’t seek to hide its design, nor its boundaries and limits. A person inside the labyrinth not only makes use of its passageways, or accepts the challenge of understanding its plan; they also bring a materiality to the shape of recurrent and relentless geometry. For the visitor standing outside, the bodies of those inside are elements that interrupt the perspective and bring into focus the dimensions, which the regularity of the metal mesh tends to confuse. A body, as a visual impediment, therefore becomes an instrument to measure distances and adjust perspectives, revealing the scale and making apparent the real physical dimension of the structure.
(Rodrigo Alonso, 2013)
Far from the sweet chain in which subjection and release lovingly become one in the immanence of a kiss, Desvío metaphorically presents a culture whose labyrinthine ways constrain rather than free us, as a framework of itineraries, causalities, and objectives “without alternatives, locked in the one and same option… and in which life only opens up in small detours” (SP). Hindering the fluidity of the in put /out put, the installed labyrinth makes us experiment its obstacles as breath as well as suffocation, with the stressed fluidity of the daily tangle of unhindered functioning. Life extinguishes itself in the strictures of law. Only in detours does it gain strength.
(Willy Thayer, 2013)
In a panorama of discarded objects, Soledad combines real items with others she has built so that, with an unadvised gaze, we do not perceive the deception […]. The visual complexity and richness of the forms are present in their totality, but material properties such as peeling paint, plastic staining, rust, and the opaque shine of metal have been exchanged for high-quality registers, for photographs that refuse to be lost. In the salvaging of objects, Pinto makes use of technical reproducibility, and also of a manual process that invests things with a certain aura that transcends the mere nostalgic expressiveness of the antique and discarded. In tension on the face of technology, the artist re- materializes the experience of the object and renders it extremely fragile. She achieves a physicality reduced to pure surface and vacuum, to the possibility of deconstructing, unfurling, or crumpling paper, which ultimately voids the body.
(Carolina Lara B., 2012)
The artist creates what should really exist beyond the real world, pulling the strings that connect words and things, thereby revealing the most hidden objects, and thus substituting logical order for another or an illogical one […]. We might be seeing a phantom hiding behind the dominance and arrogance of certain images, grossly insisting on the transience of time, but especially trying to restore its own autonomy, making it to emerge with new and proper signs, as if it would want to finally abandon this world and choose a distant universe […]. Everything in the artwork wants to speak out: nostalgia, the dumb fans, the windows that refuse to die, the stones that love to preen […]. The essence of all this is to discard quietness, to become fully immersed in the work.
(Antonio Arévalo, 2011)
The images we find in Soledad’s works are extracted from spaces in disuse that we could decodify as ‘ruins’ […]. To consider the notion of plasticity in places that have been left to decay is similar to the idea of building an aesthetic experience outside of the usual paradigms of beauty. Art based on destruction depends not only on the discovery of those abandoned things but on the comprehension of them in their corporeal dimension: dirty and dysfunctional, where the stories of certain inhabitants, their everyday scenes and objects end up mixed and materialized through bits of wall, broken glass, and tiny islands of objects. The ruin then becomes a cultural document of our natural condition, which drowns the idea of ‘culture’ itself and renders it a beautiful example of barbarity […]. The artist defends the idea that these spaces dilute the polar notions of interior and exterior: as we observe them from the outside we are nonetheless inside, our eye indulges in the luxury of traveling through crevices, corners, and spaces with no sense, giving rise to a non-corporeal experience.
(Gonzalo Pedraza, 2010)
Exhibition catalogue, Eugenio Dittborn, Rodrigo Alonso, Willy Thayer, 2013
Exhibition catalogue, Claudio Guerrero, 2013
Exhibition Review, Carolina Lara. ArtNexus Nº84, 2012
|In Other Words. The Black Market of Translations- Negotiating Contemporary Cultures
Curatorial text, Paz Guevara y Elena Agudio, 2012
|En el Medio de las Cosas (In the Midst of Things)
Exhibition catalogue, 2011
|El Lugar de la Escultura (The location of sculpture)
Curatorial text, Gonzalo Pedraza, 2010