Search Keyword: Total 28 results found.


INTERNATIONAL SEMINARPlace: La Casa EncendidaRonda de Valencia 2Dates: 5-8 February 2009

Madrid is growing in an unprecedented pace. Multi disciplinary initiatives are engaged in processes that formulate new possible relationships with the city and its inhabitants, this while revealing complex layers of information. Activities that aim to envision possible futures, beyond the current construction crisis, continue with impressive strength.

Madrid Abierto 2009-10 (previously an annual event of interventions in the city, now biennial) will host a seminar at La Casa Encendida 5-8 February 2009. This edition of Madrid Abierto sets out to investigate the potentials of collaborative socio-cultural and politically engaged work and how such work may perform as catalysts for change in the city. We will also try to activate processes that integrate new bodies of knowledge into the already existing.

The aims for these days are basically two. One is to connect the group of selected Madrid Abierto participants with people in Madrid, but also to keep connecting people in Madrid with each other. The resulting networks we aim to establish will hopefully serve as information base, forum for discussion and exchange in preparation for Madrid Abierto projects that are presented in February 2010.

In an effort to provide the artists visiting from abroad with tools that facilitate exchange with people in Madrid as well as an understanding and engagement with the city, locally based practitioners from various fields have been invited to present their views of Madrid. The seminar also includes a group of additional invited artists with an international profile who presents their context specific works carried out in other parts of the world as springboards for further discussion.



Thursday 5 February6.00-6.15 pm. Welcome speech by Cecilia Andersson, Curator of Madrid Abierto and Jorge Díez, Director of Madrid Abierto.

6.30-7.15 pm.Brief introductions for all invited participants. Open to the public for participation.

7.15-21.00 h.Presentations by Andrés Jaque, Basurama, Ludotek and Wunderkammer. Chaired by Javier Duero.

Friday 6 February 6.00-6.45 pm.Presentations by Studio Kawamura Ganjavian, Uriel Fogué, C.A.S.I.T.A. y Exprimentolimon. Chaired by Luis Úrculo.

7.00-7.45 pm. Presentation by Kyong Park.

8.00-9.00 pm. Presentations by Apolonija Šušteršič + Meike Schalk, Alexander Gerdel y Teddy Cruz. Chaired by Kyong Park.

Saturday 7 February 12.00-2.30 om. One-on-one meeting expert meetings with inivted participants and the attending public.

6.00-6.45 pm. Presentation by International Festival.

7.00-7.45 pm. Presentations by Laurence Bonvin, Susanne Bosch y Josep-Maria Martín. Chaired by STEALTH.

8.00-9.00 pm. Presentations by Jean François Prost, Adriana Salazar y Gustavo Romano. Chaired by International Festival.

Sunday 8 February 6.00-6.45 pm. Presentation by STEALTH.

7.00-7.45 pm. Presentations by Pablo Valbuena, Iñaki Larrimbe y Lisa Cheung. Chaired by STEALTH.

8.00-9.00 pm. Final discussion with all the participants. Chaired by Cecilia Andersson.



Lara Almárcegui (Spain). Her work often explores neglected or overlooked sites, carefully cataloguing and highlighting each location's tendency towards entropy. Her projects range from a guide to ruins in Holland to the display of materials used to construct the cities in which she shows. Her works are simple actions. Behind them are vast research processes.

Cecilia Andersson (Sweden) is curator and founder of Werk Ltd., a curator's studio in Stockholm. Her latest projects include Supersocial; a platform for events organised in different cities and On Cities; an exhibition at the Swedish Museum of Architecture, Stockholm. Curator of Madrid Abierto 2009-10.

Basurama (Spain) focuses its action area in productive processes, the waste such processes generate and the creative possibilities brought about by this contemporary circumstance. It aims to study phenomena that are part of the massive production of real and virtual rubbish in the consumer society, providing new views that act as generators of thoughts and attitudes.

Laurence Bonvin (Switzerland) appraoch her subjects in so-called "documentary style" that implies an exploratory approach, close to objectivity and away from the spectacular. Main fields of exploration are suburban periphery, urban sprawling, the landscape and architecture. Research include discussions with sociologists, urban thinkers, architects and others involved in the shaping of urban contexts.

Susanne Bosch (Germany/United Kingdom) carries out site-specific, gallery and context-based installations, films, drawings, objects, publications and collaborative event-based projects. Her work is usually based on long-term research questions such as the role and potential of art in contested societies and situations.

C.A.S.I.T.A. -on this occasion Diego del Pozo, Eduardo Galvagni and Loreto Alonso- (Spain) carries out projects produced in collaborations that generate time for dialogue simultaneously as they take place in autonomous art spaces. Their current project ( observes the conditions of subjectivity and methods of production.

Lisa Cheung (Great Britain/Canada) is interested in public spaces and in creating environments where social exchange can occur. She is also interested in the temporary structures that constitutes urban landscape.  In recent projects she utilised gardening and cultivating plants as a point of interaction and participation.

Teddy Cruz (United States). The task of contemporary art and architecture today should be to reveal territorial and institutional conflicts as an operational tool to redefine practices of intervention in the public domain. No advances in design can occur without re-organizing existing political structures and economic resources. This in order to promote alternative systems of sociability and activism.

Jorge Díez (Spain), cultural director and curator. Director of Madrid Abierto and co-director of the MBA in Companies and Cultural Institutions of the Santillana/Salamanca University, curator of the 2008-09 program Espai 13 of the Joan Miró Foundation in Barcelona.

Javier Duero (Spain) is an independent curator and cultural producer. He has developed projects and been the curator of exhibitions in different institutions and centres of national and international art. Currently he directs a research group on the cultural tissue of the region of Madrid for the CA2M in Móstoles. He is a member of the Pensart Cultura association.

EXPRIMENTOLIMON (Spain). A non-profit cultural association created with the aim to raise public awareness on the citizen's reading of and engagement with contemporary art. Through different workshops they attempt to make people contemplate and discuss cultural and social topics. Exprimentolimon is a multidisciplinary group involving psychologists, sociologists and art teachers.

Uriel Fogué (Spain) is an architect and teacher of the Architectonical, City and Territory Department at ESAYA (UEM). He is co-editor of the publication UHF. Most recent projects and works of his Agencia de Arquitectura (Agencia de Arquitectura (Architecture Agency) look at the "infra-structuring" of public space as an aesthetic policy practice concerning energy.

Alexander Gerdel (Venezuela). "Shanty" is a recurring topic in Gerdel's work, which resorts to this marginal and periphery architectonic figure - excluded from official history - to analyse the idiosyncrasy of a country and to confront it with its cultural identity.

International Festival (Sweden), initiated by architect Tor Lindstrand and choreographer Marten Spangberg, devises work in a range of cultural contexts and operate at the interface between architecture and performance, and between object and action. Their work facilitates a collective dialogue that aims to dissolve the line between spectator and viewer.

Andrés Jaque Architects (Spain) and the think tank linked to the Political Innovation Office explore the role architecture plays in building societies. They administer the political quality brand Arquitectura Parlamento (Parliament Architecture) and design political transparency plans; urban planning based on the word of mouth or social assemblies based on controversy, among others.    

Kawamura-Ganjavian (Spain). Architecture studio established by Key Portilla-Kawamura and Ali Ganjavian. They have worked in several countries in the fields of urbanism, architecture, stage design and product design. Their projects range from the scale of domestic objects to the territorial scale using a consistent language of concept-materialisation throughout these diverse endeavours. They are founding members of Studio Banana.

Iñaki Larrimbe (Spain) cultural activist. In the field of comic strips he co-founded and co-directs the magazine TMEO. He recently coordinated the device Inmersiones focused on artistic practices emerging from the Basque Country. As an artist his most recent works aim to belong to a "do it yourself" culture situated within the mechanisms of cultural industries.

Ludotek (Spain). Ludotek is a chronotopic, social and physical research lab.Ludotek proposes a critical exploration related to the leisure activities of the contemporary individual.Ludotek researches children's activities, produces tests with children based on video, ludograms, documents and play with children without providing any type of education.

Josep-Maria Martín (Spain). With a subjective and reflective will questions and criticises the reality upon which he decides to work. His pieces emphasise ideas about process, research, participation, involvement and negotiation so that the agents identified for each project become real generators of a common project.

Kyong Park (United States) is associate professor at University of California San Diego (from 2007), a co-curator for Shrinking Cities in Berlin (2002-2004), the founding director of International Center for Urban Ecology, Detroit (1999-2001), a curator of Kwangju Biennale, South Korea (1997), the founder/director of StoreFront for Art and Architecture in New York (1982-1998).

Jean François Prost (Canada). Artist and architect whose work is based on initiating change in our perception and conception of the urban environment. Projects aim to activate uses in public spaces, contribute and begin to rebuild an urban imaginary, show, encourage visible acts of resistance, of sociability and signs of positive antagonism.

Gustavo Romano (Argentina) has carried out his work using different media: action art, installations, video, net art and photography. He favours the concept of "project" over work of art. He participated in the Havana Biennial and the Singapore Biennial, among others. Awarded Guggenheim Fellowship 2006.

Adriana Salazar (Colombia) has observed how our behaviours become a sign of our subjectivity, and despite this they are not normally the object of our reflections. She has then gone to the production of machines that subvert the sense of our actions: doing actions clumsily, repetitively and out of context, turning the ordinary into something absurd.

STEALTH.unlimited -Ana Dzokic and Marc Neelen- (Serbia/The Netherlands). Their practice spans urban research, spatial intervention and cultural activism. STEALTH considers space a tool and agency. Projects like Wild City (Belgrade) or Urban Catalyst (Amsterdam) involve diverse models of collaborative practicing and co-creation. Co-initiators of Lost Highway Expedition (Western Balkans) and co-curators of the Dutch pavilion, Venice (2008).

Apolonija Šušteršič + Meike Schalk (Germany/The Netherlands/Slovenia). Šušteršič's artistic research combines practice and theory to pursue methods for reflection in which the provocation of crisis leads to a scenario of alternatives and spaces for hope. Schalk is an architect and researcher, teaching the Critical Studies Studio at KTH School of Architecture in Stockholm, together with FATALE (Feminist Architecture Theory Analysis Laboratory Education).

Luis Úrculo (Spain), a graduate of the ETSAM and Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, carries out projects involving architecture, video, design and illustration, among others for Philippe Starck, Sybilla, Mansilla-Tuñón and BCG. He has exhibited his work recently in the 11th Biennial of Venice, FreshMadrid!, Gallery Dama Aflita (Porto) and JAE (Young Spanish Architects).

Pablo Valbuena (Spain),architect graduated at the ETSAM, he has been linked to the tangent spheres of art and architecture, developing spatial concepts applied to virtual environments, videogames, cinema and digital architecture. He currently develops art projects related to space, time and perception.

WUNDERKAMMER -bblab, G+W gálvez-wieczorek, MISC- (Spain).Team made up of three studios that together develop projects within the field of architecture, urban planning, landscaping, design and teaching. Their collaboration does not fit into a standard studio model, but rather as a laboratory that accommodates a constant exchange of ideas and experiences. 


Director: Jorge DíezCurator: Cecilia AnderssonCoordination: RMS La Asociación

Organize: Asociación Cultural Madrid Abierto y La Casa EncendidaSponsor: Fundación Altadis, Área de Gobierno de las Artes del Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Consejería de Cultura y Turismo de la Comunidad de MadridCollaborator: Casa de América, ARCO, Círculo de Bellas Artes, Fundación Telefónica, Ministerio de Cultura, Radio 3, Canal Metro, Fundación Rodríguez-Centro Cultural Montehermoso









2009-2010. EVALUATION MEETING 2010 (report)

MADRID ABIERTO 2009-2010Evaluation meetingMatadero, 2nf and 3rd of July 2010


Laurence Bonvin, Susanne Bosch, Lisa Cheung, Iñaki Larrimbe, Josep-Maria Martín, Jean-François Prost and Gustavo Romano (participant artists in Madrid Abierto 2009-2010); Pablo España (Democracia), Ramon Parramon and Fito Rodríguez (members of the advisory committee of Madrid Abierto 2007-2009); Jorge Díez and Marta de la Torriente (Asociación Cultural Madrid Abierto); Pilar Acón, María Molina, Mariano Serrano and Manuela Sevilla (collaborators of Madrid Abierto 2009-2010).


The treated issues according to the established programme created by the advisory committee of Madrid Abierto (March 2008):

Fito Rodríguez comments on the reasons for the absence of this edition’s curator, Cecilia Andersson, who should provide an essential perspective for the evaluation. He also stresses that the horizon seems to be predetermined in suggested guidelines.

Jorge Díez states that proper dates to allow the presence of everyone involved were discussed but that it had been impossible for her to come. He says that in a meeting with Cecilia after the presentation of projects in February, they analyzed the difficulties she had to carry out a proper tracking of the production of projects, due to her living in Sweden and the overlap that occurs when making decisions with the production team and headship of Madrid Abierto. Anyhow, the experience of this edition, which covered two years, with a previous preparatory encounter in February of 2009 was considered very positive. Regarding the proposed guidelines for 2011, they are the consequence, on one hand, of the convenience of developing tasks which are impossible to cover following the usual calendar of project development and, on the other hand, the impossibility of compromising the institutional funding for the next edition, bearing in mind the next local and autonomic elections in the first semester of 2011.

Bellow, different issues brought up in this evaluation session:

1. Keep the open call with a maximum of 50% more artists invited by the curators.To Jean-Françis Prost the edition was very interesting and we must keep it this way. Pablo España underlines the fact that the open call is one of the essential features of the project. No discussion on the subject of percentage of guests.

2. Create a biennial periodicity, keeping the debate sessions and presentations of selected artists for the first year. Focus, the first year as well, on working with selected artists and elaboration of projects.Diversity of opinions regarding this issue, which are determined by the type of project each artist is dealing with. Some artists, like Josep-María Martin, consider a two year span very little time and suggest it should be triennial (first year for reflection, second year to conceptualize the idea and third year to develop the project. “I have had very little time to reflect on the project, in 6 months I had to deliver a final project and for my type of work there is not enough time to conceptualize”.) When asked about such periodicity, Iñaki Larrimbe considers two years as too much time. Other participants came up with the option of giving each artist the time he needs and carry out the project at different points in time, respecting the cycles of each project and its process. Josep-María insists on the fact that it depends on the type of project, if it has already been thought about and is a development of some previous concept or if it is a project that needs to comprehend and develop within the city, with the community. Laurence Bonvin thinks that she would have needed a whole year to discover the city and another year to take the pictures, she agrees with the fact that it depends on if the project already exists. Pablo España thinks that the model of this last edition is much more realistic regarding artistic practices, thus it has clearly improved. The model might use one practice or the other, depending on the global project. The 2008 edition was of direct propaganda. He agrees in expanding the time span but questions its viability.We should keep the first year’s encounter, considered by Susanne Bosch, among others, as very important to create contacts, relationships and know the inner workings of Madrid. In such encounter, the Urban Buddy Schemme should prevail by bringing people together and meeting the city’s residents and other agents that might help in the subsequent development, infrastructure and dialogue that the project will need. Josep-María also thinks that the first encounter in February 2009 went very well. He thinks we should keep that first event and create an intermediate work meeting for the artist to get involved in the management of Madrid Abierto and foster collaborations between projects.

Josep-María thinks it is essential to increase the time period in order to find external funding which is necessary for each project. He also believes that Madrid Abierto should become an agency which prolongs the project in time while other projects and things take place during the year and not only during February. He thinks there at two possible models:A- Select projects in open call and start work.B- Offer contexts and relations to the artists and start working on the project at that moment.He thinks the best model would be a synthesis of both. Ramón Parramón thinks that the concentration of projects in time is positive in relation to communication, visibility… and negative for the artist, but it is necessary to keep a common moment in time for all projects. Pablo thinks that we are tending more and more towards the invisibility of the projects therefore he considers it essential to have a date in which they coincide, although there are projects that need more time and continuity. That common moment could be an exhibition.

Josep-María thinks that it’s very important to do something to make the subjective element of each project visible (Are we capable of transforming something subjective? Reveal the work that has been carried out?). Fito believes we should create an accessible device for the public, to explain the projects. He thinks it makes no sense going back to exhibition halls, this would undermine what has already been achieved in public space. There has to be another way to show it, that is the problem. Pablo thinks it is possible to use both platforms; the hall and public space. He doesn’t believe in going back to the institutions or to work in the enclosed space of exhibition halls. Fito and Susanne think the artist himself should take his project from the subjective realm to decide and find the way of showing it; he has to find a solution in order for the external to return to an enclosed space. Laurence thinks there are projects in which we have to discuss not only how they should be shown but also, in projects that have dealt with an external community, to see how such community or communities have been represented and information returns to that community.

Josep-María thinks that technical problems should be shown, why a project has ended up being a certain way and not another, how a project has started, its plan and how it has ended up. Madrid Abierto is a laboratory, with a development in which the artist’s final analysis and delivery of information is essential. It is also essential to arrive to final conclusions, which must be transmitted. Fito dwells on how people can start out from this lab to transcend it and surpass its frontiers into other realms.

3. Continue with February’s interventions In general, people have suggested carrying out projects outside the month of February, for it is not a proper month weather wise, as well as the amount of ARCO related activities, which interfere. Susanne thinks that by changing the intervention month, a different use of space would be activated on the public’s mind. Manuela Sevilla also thinks it is necessary to change the interventions’ month. Josep-María thinks that the interesting side of keeping it in February is that it coincides with ARCO providing affluence of specialized public that is in Madrid in those dates. The possibility of keeping it during ARCO is discussed, but extending the period of exhibition from one month to three. Jorge Díez underlines the fact that, both the common moment in time and its coinciding with ARCO are product of the restructuring of the Open Spaces project carried out by the Altadis Foundation within the Fair itself and on the other hand, the needed visibility both for the public and sponsorship. It is also indisputable that much of the professionals that go to ARCO can discover Madrid Abierto knowing that it would be very difficult to make them come expressly to see it. Also, due to the lack of money that Madrid Abierto invests on promotion, a special time gap has been created in the busy calendar of the city, just before ARCO, which the media has already incorporated. An example is the lack of attention that the media showed for Susanne’s project which started in November.

4. Include a paragraph in the call to contextualize the edition and another more specific paragraph written by the curator/s.Susanne thinks it is essential because, in her case, she decided to participate only after having read that paragraph.

5. Continue to physically and conceptually exceed the Prado-Recoletos-Castellana axis.Lisa Cheung doesn’t feel the need to keep intervening within those limits.Pablo España thinks that it is necessary to surpass those limits to continue with the more realistic model developed in Madrid Abierto.Jorge considers the transgression of these limits has taken place increasingly and effectively in successive editions. On the other hand, right now institutions would be thrilled by the idea of Madrid Abierto leaving the axis completely. There have been projects (critically oriented) in last editions which have involved very complicated negotiations due to the visibility they had within the axis, and for which other locations entailed no resistance at all.

6. Continue with audiovisual and sound sections and amplify specific means for their broadcast.The issue wasn’t discussed.

7. Maintain the current advisory committee and choose the curators among its members.Jorge explains how in 2009, after some personal resignations, they decided to dissolve the committee created in 2007, after the interesting review of the Madrid Abierto model, as consequence of conflicting interests on the role of the curator and also the bad administration of its participation in the model applied by Cecilia in the preparatory encounter of February of 2009.Once again the role of the curator is discussed, issue on which there is a diversity of opinions. Fito thinks it is important to maintain two values:a. The flexibility proven by Madrid Abierto to constantly review the model.b. He supports the idea of eliminating the curator as individual figure and suggests a collective curatorial position (it’s risky but this wide open policy is a beautiful idea).

On the other hand, like Josep-María, Susanne and Lisa, they support the figure of the individual curator when carrying out their role correctly. It is essential for the curator to be in contact with the artists and never to be “absent”. Josep-María thinks that in this edition the contact with the curator has been very intermittent and might have affected some projects.

Pablo thinks that if the curator is eliminated, Madrid Abierto is under the risk of becoming standard. Josep-María thinks that if we intend to continue with the idea of plurality, and thesis, there must be a curator or curatorial group (for example, maybe the artists of one edition might select the artists of the next), someone to direct the process as an interlocutor in a concrete place, an accessible person who knows the context of Madrid. Susanne thinks it is essential to give each edition a subject or theme; the curator can be international but we also need someone who knows the realities of the city. She suggests the idea of a young person able to create a connection with a foreign curator.

8. Generate documents and publications which expand the experience and the accumulated knowledge of the five editions,Total agreement.

New issues suggested outside the programmed plan:

1. Communication. Essential subject in which there is total agreement. Jean-François, due to his type of project, can’t plan everything beforehand and needs to carry out an action to activate sensibility and participation in the workshop. His intervention in Atocha has been complicated due to the station’s own rhythm and type of people that walk through the area. He would have needed more communication in order to get to people. He suggests the creation of a better and more specific map or plan where each intervention is clearly distinguishable. We have to find and develop new communication channels so the interventions get to the general public.

2. Manuela considers the project has globally gotten to the public after six editions and has been better conceptualized. By taking place in a two year period it becomes more “intriguing” to the public that follows it with more interest.

3. Ramón Parramón thinks Madrid Abierto has found a balance and has grown to relevant dimensions. He finds it complex because it combines a festival with production and residency (distributed in time). To him it also needs contacts and interaction with neighbourhoods and communities. It is important not to have a space or location of reference.

4. Josep-María believes in the importance of evaluation sessions, which must continue to maintain a transparency which he finds essential.

5. Ramón Parramón thinks the team of Madrid Abierto is too small, he also believes dynamic projects need a tracking, both in preproduction and the rest of the process until they develop completely. Fito says the model each time tends more towards a production agency. Therefore he thinks it is fundamental to create a larger team to produce less projects of larger potential. In his mind a team must be created and dedicated to the production, search of interlocutors for dynamic processes and development, as well as another group exclusively dedicated to communicate with the people, communities, media, blogs,… Josep-Maria disagrees with the idea of reducing the number of projects.

6. Madrid Abierto’s independence is crucial.

7. Josep-María and Susanne Bosch think it’s necessary to create residencies for artists.

8. To Josep-María communication and interaction between selected artists is necessary (an initial one and another during the process in order to share the complexity of its development). He claims not to have known the final development of each project, this has frustrated him. Although Laurence thinks it’s very important to bring the artists together during the year, she finds it very difficult, having the timing of each project in mind, to find a date and moment which fits everyone’s agenda. Lisa agrees with the organization of an annual event to specify the needs of each project and to put them in common with the rest of the artists. Jean-François thinks that the lack of communication between artists has been their own responsibility, they are the ones who must create relationships, but they haven’t. He thinks that, for this purpose, certain platforms or already existing tools could be used for this communication. For example, he names places to meet for five days to work on one project, then on another, and then with the rest. Laurence thinks Madrid Abierto is the one who should decide if it wants more interaction among artists.

9. Laurence considers there must be more communication with the Madrid Abierto team which should explain each person’s role in the organization not to get confused when working. Josep- María agrees on this, there must be a curator, a global producer and local producer; this last position would be currently missing. Due to this communication he claims not to have been able to study or see the different possibilities to develop his project, but to have been given very limited options. Jorge says that in the meeting of February 2009 each person’s function was explained, inside the tiny team of Madrid Abierto. He also explains all the options that were gradually given, for example, to Josep-María regarding his project, which, at some point and, in spite of having a local mediator chosen by himself was in a dead end, solutions that turned out to be pretty effective, for example, to locate and access an apartment where immigrants lived.

10. Both Laurence and Jean-François think it is important to make a first payment of fees at the beginning of the edition. Laurence also thinks that part of the fees should be external to the rest of the money used in production, being important to speed up the payment of those fees. Jorge explains that the fees are included in the totality of each project, but clearly separated and quantified; he apologizes once again because the payment still hasn’t been made due to the fact that Madrid Abierto has not received the City Hall’s subsidy yet, something that has never happened before.

11. Laurence thinks it is important for foreign artists to have a person who mediates with the project and knows the city well. For Lisa’s type of projects, she says she needs an infrastructure-platform to develop them and a different dialogue to that which other projects may need. To her it is basic to have a person in the city where she’s intervening through which she can access the people of different neighbourhoods and to create connections with them. Josep-María thinks that each project needs a support team or an ambassador (it could be done through University students or a teacher or hired person). With time to find funding, such support could be possible. Susanne thinks that the role of an ambassador who works and becomes each project’s spokesman is very important, be it a student or a hired person. Jorge stresses that in different ways all type of possibilities have been experimented, in some cases promoted by the artists and in others by Madrid Abierto. When someone is hired this must be included in the total budget and so it has been done when certain artists have decided to, but volunteers or grant holders have certain degree of uncertainty and lack of professionalism that some artists assume as part of the project and others don’t. The same thing happens with the basic team of Madrid Abierto, which changes with each edition. The reason to this is probably the scale of the whole project and the available budget, which, on the other hand, is dedicated mostly to the projects. It is very possible that the level of voluntarism has exceeded for long any reasonable limit.

12. The search of parallel ways to find funding. Jorge says that this has always been done in different ways for specific projects, but that the global funding has decreased once Altadis Foundation abandoned the project while other alternatives haven’t been found in the private sector, in spite of Telefonica Foundation’s momentarily interest. Also, both the City Hall and Community of Madrid have been reducing the budgets during the last two years, as a consequence of the economic crisis.

Result analysis of the finished projects and new guidelines:

1. Madrid Abierto’s open archive in Matadero.Jorge explains that, after many tries, and thanks to the collaboration of Pablo Berastegui, coordinator of Matadero, Madrid Abierto will share a space with three other projects (architecture, performing arts and visual artists from Madrid) to organize and centralize both the digital and physical contents that have been generated along the six editions. María Díaz and Manuela Sevilla are already structuring the contents and adding them to the archive.Susanne and Lisa think that each artist should provide material from the draft, the project and conclusions. It is also felt that it should be open, for communication (blog type) and for a future international forum. Jorge stresses the fact that, initially, everything will be incorporated, except certain contents due to their characteristics or to lack of permission from the artist to be uploaded. At first, like other archives in Matadero, they will be available for public enquire by having previously arranged a date. Susanne underlines the fact that there are other projects in Europe that are working on this subject. Jorge asks for available information to try and collaborate with them.

2. Educational project.María Molina considers it is possible to keep developing the educational project, in 2011 this year’s pilot experience could be extended.

3. Production of a document based exhibition about the whole of Madrid Abierto in its six editions.Jorge claims that this exhibition would help us review the work that has been done and reinforce the project’s presence both in exhibition halls and different activities to which Madrid Abierto is invited.

Due to lack of time we won’t analyze each project in the current edition, therefore we find both evaluation sessions to have ended.















Location: La Casa Encendida (Ronda de Valencia n 2)Moderated by: Cecilia Andersson and Jorge Díez.


4th of Februaryfrom 18.00 to 21.00h

Participating artists:18.00 to 18.30 Lara Almarcegui18.30 to 19.00 Laurence Bonvin19.00 to 19.30 Teddy Cruz19.30 to 20.00 Josep-Maria Martín20.00 to 20.30 Pablo Valbuena20.30 to 21.00 Debate and questions

5th of Februaryfrom 18.00 to 21.00h

Participating artists:18.00 to 18.30 Susanne Bosch18.30 to 19.00 Lisa Cheung19.00 to 19.30 Inaki Larrimbe19.30 to 20.00 Adaptive Actions20.00 a 20.30 Gustavo Romano20.30 a 21.00 Debate and questions



6th of February 18.00h

Introduction of the audiovisual pieces selected in the 9th and 10th edition of conducted by Fito Rodríguez.
















Lisa Iñaki LarrimbeUnofficial

Josep-María MartínUna casa digestiva para Lavapiés / A digestive house for Lavapié

Adaptive ActionsCampo AA, Madrid / AA Camp, Madrid

Gustavo RomanoTime Notes: Oficina móvil / Time Notes: Mobile

Pablo ValbuenaTorre / Tower

Teddy CruzVallecas Abierto: ¿Cómo nos van a ayudar con su arte? / Vallecas Abierto: How is your art going to help us?

Susanne BoschHucha de desesos: ¡Todos somos un barrio, movilízate!    Lara AlmarceguiBajar al subterráneo recién excavado / Going down to the recently excavated underground passage.











2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe (Cv)


SELECTED SOLO EXHIBITIONS2004Agnosia, Galería J.M, Málaga.Cara de chicle, Cajastur, Gijón, (catálogo editado).

2003La casa de goma, C.C Montehermoso, Vitoria-Gasteiz, (catálogo editado).

2002Plasticity, Galería Bilkin, Bilbao.

2001Plasticman, Bilbao-arte, Ayuntamiento de Bilbao, (catálogo editado).

SELECTED GROUP EXHIBITIONS2009Comparada, Sala Fundación Caja Vital, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2007Objeto de réplica, Artium, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2006Bienal de Artes Plásticas, Ciudad de Pamplona.

2005Objetland, Junto a Ciuco Gutierrez y Txema Madoz. Galería Siboney, Santander.

2004Dfoto, Stand Galería Bilkin, San Sebastián. Sin Sentido, Galería Trayecto, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Arco 2004, Stand Galería Bilkin, San Sebastián.

2003Feria Internacional de Arte de Bruselas, Stand Ego Galery.Arco 2003, Stand Galería Bilkin, San Sebastián.

2002Foro Sur, Stand Galería Siboney, Cáceres.Gótico pero exótico, Museo Artium de Álava, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Feria Internacional de Arte de Turín, Stand Galería Alter Ego, Torino.Arco 2002, Stand Galería Siboney.Red, Galería Alter-Ego, Barcelona.

2001Feria Internacional de Arte de Frankfurt, Galería Alter-Ego, Frankfurt. PROJECTS 2009-10Unofficial Tourism, Oficina de turismo alternativo, Madrid Abierto, Madrid.

2009Iquitos, Perú, Hotel Sándalo, Habitación 23, Sesión de fotos turísticas realizadas y entregadas a una familia sin recursos económicos.

2008¿Sauna finlandesa o descenso de barrancos? Espacio de alojamiento para turistas culturales, Con el apoyo de la galería Trayecto, el Centro Cultural Montehermoso y Krea, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2007Bogotá, Hotel Princesa, Habitación 14, Cómic-diario de viaje, Expuesto en la Galería Santa Fé de la Alcaldía Mayor, Planetario de Bogotá.

2006Airotiv, Columna de crítica cultural, Diario de Noticias de Álava. Hotel Páramo, Habitación 122, Ejerciendo de turista en la propia cuidad, Galería Trayecto, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Seria Soneub, Realización de guía de viaje, C.C. Recoletta, Gobierno de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

2005Caracas, Hotel Eliot. Habitación 123, Libro de viaje, Itineró por diversos espacios alternativos del País Vasco.

CURATORIAL PROJECTS2010Hartos de arte, Exposición itinerante y publicación para ser distribuida con la revista TMEO.

2009Co-realización del Proyecto Amárica (proyecto de gestión de tres salas expositivas del Departamento de Cultura de la Diputación Foral de Álava por parte de una asamblea abierta de agentes culturales locales, actualmente funcionando)

1999-09Coordinador del Espacio independiente Zuloa, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2008-9Coordinador de Inmersiones, Sala Amárica, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2003-8 Coordina el Festival Cultural, Crash Cómic de Vitoria, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

1988 Cofundador de la revista de cómic TMEO, Realiza cómics y la diseña

WRITINGS2005Columnista cultural en el diario de su ciudad, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2005-6Crítico puntual de arte en el suplemento Mugalari (Gara)

1999-2002Director del fanzine cultural Acción.

EDUCATIONLicenciado en Bellas Artes.

AWARDS AND GRANTS2008Ayudas a la producción. Centro Cultural Krea. Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2006Beca Centro Museo Vasco Artium. Premio a la promoción de la cultura local. Diario de Noticias de Álava.

2004Compra de obra en el 3er Premio Concurso de Artes Plásticas de Cantabria.

2002-2003Ayudas a la creación, Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2000Adquisición de obra en el Certamen de Artes Plásticas de Pollenca, Mallorca.

1999Beca de fotografía Can Basté, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona.

WORKS IN MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONSArtium de Álava, Gobierno de Cantabria, Bilbao Arte, Gobierno Vasco. Ayuntamiento de Pollenca, Ministerio de Cultura Español.


2004, 2003Catálogos de Arco.

LIBROS2009Libro, Sauna finlandesa o descenso de barrancos, Iñaki Larrimbe. Colección Esci Project 3. Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz.

2004Catálogo, Cara de chicle, Iñaki Larrimbe, Cajastur, Oviedo.













2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (theoretical data)


Tourism, that great industry, has democratized – and trivialized- experiences. And cultural tourism doesn’t elude this perversion: the administration of culture as a way to create consumer habits in today’s citizens is imposing. This is an already unstoppable phenomenon. Paraphrasing Begout’s words on Las Vegas: “it’s a matter of following one rule: suggest experiences to tourists and visitors”. And in this way local programs on culture strip themselves of content in trying to attract visitors that may generate economic profit for the cities. In such a situation citizens become extras of the film: culture is not an end in itself, but just another economic resource. In the same way as “beach and sun” tourism has destroyed many natural settings, the new cultural tourism damages local cultural ecosystems. The paradox is that this new landscape is motivated and stimulated by the Culture departments of our public institutions.

The “Unoficcial tourism” project intends to embed itself, through the economy of means, the “do it yourself” philosophy, inside the mechanisms created by the cultural industries. But “Unoficcial tourism” doesn’t intend to criticize. The idea is to be part of such reality from a nihilistic point of view, because “Unoficcial tourism” is designed to serve foreign cultural consumers. It tries to respond to the demand of cultural entertainment which, as we have said, new cultural policies (based on a socioeconomic criterion) have created.

The fact that political management of culture has accepted the “public realm” of the cultural experience as just another “resource”, against, not only other ways of perceiving culture – were it considered a value, a lifestyle or a way to interpret difference-, but believing that beyond media attention it has no value, has been an influence in the development of this project. Also, and paradoxically, if we agree with Castell, “the transformation of capitalism, the continuous weakening of the State’s influence, together with social changes originated in the development of new technologies” establishes a whole institutional context where the economic and moral resources of what we call “non profit” is used as a way to legitimize social development, job creation, cultural tourism, etc. The full acceptance of these facts has produced a series of alterations in the art system that must be treated with criticism. A criticism that, by its own logic, private and public cultural institutions (which follow such socioeconomic approach) do not subscribe to.


THE INTERVENTIONThe idea is to customize a caravan, turning it into a “non official” tourist office to be located in the streets of Madrid and thus be able to meet the foreign cultural tourist’s needs. We choose a caravan as formal device due to its attainability: it is economic and easy to transform.

ACCOMPLICESItinerary creatorsIt is necessary to count on different people related in some way to the city of Madrid to elaborate some maps or street plans, showing strange, curious or personal tourist itineraries…

Already created itinerariesA series of artists (Leo Bassi, for example) have developed in some occasions alternative tourist itineraries of Madrid. It would be interesting to study their history, visualize them in maps and integrate them into our project to offer them to foreign cultural consumers.

Tour guide We will need a guide to help and inform tourists.

Graphic designerNecessary to design all the graphic material (maps, brochures,…) and to customize the caravan.














2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (location)

Pº de Recoletos,central boulevard














2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (2009.05 / project review / theoretical data)



- A location has been selected for the intervention: in front the Wax Museum (Paseo de Recoletos 41).

- A working team has been created with the creators of routes:John Tones will create an itinerary on old arcade machines.Mauro Entrialgo, neon promotion signs.Jimina Sabadú, places in Madrid where famous movies have been filmed.Santi Otxoa, religious relics.Guillermo, murals.

- Marta has asked for six budgets to print works of Madrid for the making of maps, booklet and exterior vinyl to decorate the caravan.

- The cost of hiring a person to work helping tourists in the caravan has been evaluated. Marta will take care of it.

- An artisan has been contacted to customize the caravan in Vitoria (internal furniture).

- A graphic designer has been contacted in Vitoria to design the graphic material.

- A person from Vitoria has been contacted to take the caravan to Madrid.

- A website has been created:

- The budget is always under revision. The project will adjust perfectly to it. In this aspect, there are no problems.


- End of June: delivery of the maps by collaborators

- July, August, September: design of maps and booklet by designer

- October, November and December: internal and external customization of the caravan (designer and artisan)

- End of January: hire the person in the caravan

- End of January: transfer caravan to Madrid and locate it in its proper place

 (MAY 2009)









2009-2010. DISCUSSION PANELS / 5 feb 2010 (video)

5th of February 20106pm to 9pm.  PRESENTATION OF THE INTERVENTIONS

1Presented and moderated by Cecilia Andersson and Jorge Díez (00:00 - 00:40)

Iñaki Larrimbe, Unofficial Tourism(00:40 - 20.05)

Adaptive Actions, AA Camp, Madrid(20:05 - 27:05)



2Adaptive Actions, AA Camp, Madrid(00:00 - 26:36)



3Adaptive Actions, AA Camp, Madrid(00:00 - 05.17)

Lisa Cheung, Huert-o-Bus(05:17 - 27:29)



4Lisa Cheung, Huert-o-Bus(00.00 - 01:24)


5Gustavo Romano, Time Notes: Mobile office(00.00 - 05:36)

Susanne Bosch + Zoohaus + María Molina, Hucha de desesos: ¡Todos somos un barrio, movilízate!Susanne Bosch(05.36 - 20:28)


6Susanne Bosch + Zoohaus + María MolinaSusanne Bosch(00.00 - 03:00)

Zoohaus(03:00 - 19:46)

Susanne Bosch + María Molina, Educational ProjectSusanne Bosch(19:46 - 20.29)

7Susanne Bosch(00:00 - 05:33)

María Molina(05:33 - 11:30)

Susanne Bosch + Zoohaus + María Molina(11:30 - 20:29)

8Debate and questions(00:00 - 06.27)














2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (published text)


With Unoficcial tourism, artist Iñaki Larrimbe seeks to customize a caravan and turn it into an `unofficial´tourist office. By locating it in the streets of Madrid, the aim is to inform foreign cultural consumers (tourists) by offeringmaps and guides containing alternative routes of exploration. Different to those delivered by the `official tourism´, these itineraries have been made by six people livingin Madrid, and who are related to its most alternative culture, its `underground´ or counterculture. Mauro Entrialgo and Adriana Herreros have created a guide to “Advertising neon signs”, Guillermo de Madrid has put together a route of “Urban Art”, Jimina Sabadu shows us public spaces where motion pictures wereshot; John Tones invites us to walk into various arcades and stores that have kept the old school game machines; Santi Otxoa delivers an itinerary to “One hundred year old taverns in Madrid” and the Todo por la praxis collective, encourages us to meet the unheard-of human fauna and urban flora in the neighbourhood of “Cañada Real”.

The Unoficcial tourism project aims to attach itself, through humble resources and with support of `do it yourself´ culture,inside those mechanisms created by cultural economic interests and tourism. In every way this is a parasitic type of activity that creates parallel structures to official versions byusing public spaces and infrastructures, and in this manner intend to create and spread different views and interpretations of Madrid. It involves the idea of transferring the format of a`fanzine´ transmission onto tourism by creating an `underground office´ with the help ofresources available to the ordinarycitizen: a caravan.

To sum up, Unoficcial tourism aims to be a project that responds and tends to the cultural entertainment necessities that, as suggested above, the new cultural policies based on socioeconomic criteria have generated. But Unoficcial tourism does not intend to raise a critical voice. The idea is to participate in reality from a nihilistic point of view. The reason for thisis that institutional critique todayis not possible. A virgin space does not exist, there is no non-institutional realm, which can serve as a basis to generate criticism.

This new project by Larrimbe carries on with the theme of cultural tourism, something he has already been dealing with in his latest productions. In a similar manneras last year, when the artist recreated a `hotel´ in a small private space in his home townVitoria, andwith scarse resources tried to fulfill the needs for accommodation that the Museums, art Centers and cultural venues have created locally Unoficcial tourism is the beginning of an `alternative tourist office´. As the critic Peio Aguirre states in his book Sauna finlandesa o descenso de barrancos “The figure of Larrimbe as a cultural agitator inside the cultural framework of the city situates him in a difficult position in order to assume the role of an artist supported by a representational legitimacy. He is conscious of this satellite position. If, as he himself notices, the critic has already been digested and the auto-sabotages can’t be taken any further, it seems to be a better choice to be playing the game of inscribing himself inside those mechanisms (as oil added to the machine) against which he daily fights. So, knowing the artistic position he holds, it seems to be a good option to try and interrogate, once again, about the nature of the critic and the limits of the institutionalized insides and outsides. Is it the same thing to do, to write a column in a newspaper analyzing the activity of cultural policies or to carry out a project where a whole device of communication and infrastructure is being represented?

Obviously it is not the same thing. However, the message is not too different. Does the caravan-device alibi reinforce or neutralize the critic? Does the content of the statement revolve against its own form of communication? How does having to contribute in any way to Larrimbe’s project affect the institutions?”

















2009-2010. MESAS DEBATE / 04, 05 feb 2010 (imágenes)

2009-2010. MESAS DEBATE / 04, 05 feb 2010 (imágenes)





















2009-2010 / 2010.02.22. BLOGS.KM77.COM. Turistas del arte urbano (Iñaki Larrimbe)

2009-2010 / 2010.02.22. BLOGS.KM77.COM. Turistas del arte urbano (Iñaki Larrimbe)


















2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. SAUNA FINLANDESA O ¿DESCENSO DE BARRANCOS?, 2008

2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. SAUNA FINLANDESA O ¿DESCENSO DE BARRANCOS?, 2008



SAUNA FINLANDESA O DESCENSO DE BARRANCOS (Finnish sauna or orienteering) 

The intervention entitled “SAUNA FINLANDESA O DESCENSO DE BARRANCOS” a caravan located in the artist’s studio (a rented fish market). The project is offered not so much as a cheap form of housing but as a temporary form of use (one night) for cultural consumers.

The work approaches the cultural industry from a critical point of view, not against it and its consequences, which would be a typical modern stance, but as nihilistic participant in the process.

Addressing cultural tourism as a form of trivialization, if not perversion, of the arguments of public policies on art and culture which have situated the problems of art and society in the economic promotion and strategic planning departments of current governments.


PUBLICATIONColletion: Esci Projects 3Edit: Ayuntamiento de vitoria-GasteizEspacio Ciudad (Centro de Arquitectura y Urbanismo para la Ciudad Contemporánea)** see the attached pdf

























09-10inme2544, 09-10inie2545, 09-10inte3567

2009.2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (2009.10 / fieldwork)

2009.2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (2009.10 / fieldwork)














2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (publication)




















f09-10inmc2784, f09-10inmc2788

2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (proposed locations)

2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (proposed locations)


















2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (images)

2009-2010. Iñaki Larrimbe. UNOFFICIAL TOURISM (images)