Unedited conversations between artist in a productive critique  discovering  thesis and processes behind the work.








Guerrier:  ‪hi, can i interrupt?


Ramos:  ‪always


Guerrier:  ‪ ‬‬‬i just wrote a short text


i need some one else to read it


Ramos:  ‪send away‬‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪how are you today?‬‬‬


Ramos:  ‪i am well... reading your text, give me a min or two - this is complex‬‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪yeah take your time‬‬‬


Ramos: i have an issue with the word "equity"


because it has such a financial connotation, so to say that it is revolutionary confuses the message for me


Guerrier:  ‪ok.


equity has been taken up by the financial sector


but i like it the way it implies balance‬‬‬


‪pointing out that there is inequality in the world


is a call for equity


Ramos:  ‪i don't think equity has any of those connotations‬‬‬


equity = cash




Guerrier:  ‪not exactly


Ramos:  ‪in today's landscape‬‬‬


not it's etymology


Guerrier:  ‪equity is a one's stake in something of value‬‬‬


like real estate


but i can cut it


a call for justice gets to the point


Ramos:  ‪why not use something like equilibrium‬‬‬


This is what shows up for equity: noun, plural equities.


1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality:


the equity of Solomon.


something that is fair and just:


the equities of our criminal-justice system.


(I see what you mean)


Guerrier:  ‪partly equity refers to the rule of law and the administering of justice‬‬‬


‪this equity is large and poetic


Ramos:  ‪yes.. but all I think about it - "how much equity you have on the project"


Guerrier:  ‬equity as an amount is bad


Ramos:  ‪i think the way you want to use equity is already infused in the word justice


like you mentioned above, perhaps justice is enough


Guerrier:  ‪cool‬‬‬


‪what about the last line?‬‬‬


is it clear?


Ramos:  ‪i had to look up the word Archimedean‬‬‬




‪and I'm happy to because it led me to the principle of buoyancy and heat ray parabolic reflectors‬‬‬


are you referring to a specific perspective - a view of totality which therefore makes you autonomous?


Guerrier:  ‪i want to link Archimedes's great statement


to everything


Ramos:  ‪which is?‬‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪so autonomy is a  being that is complete


and one can use whatever leverage


to get there


some of it is bad, like stealing to better oneself


some like inheritance and privilege is kind of neutral


some like educating oneself is definitely good


so leverage used towards autonomy


Ramos:  ‪you don't use the word leverage‬‬‬


you use lever


Guerrier:  ‪a lever is used to give leverage‬‬‬


Ramos:  ‪and you don't really link Archimedes to autonomy


my question to you is:


don't you think you are being a little inaccessible?


i mean, who is your audience?


i feel like your choice of words is so narrow


when your ideas are very general


i think it would be more powerful if what you were trying to say was obvious


takes so much energy to guess and figure out how the words are working


i mean - i get it


but it's not explicit nor simple, which causes a bit of frustration and isolation


Guerrier:  ‪yeah, narrow choice of words is a bad habit‬‬‬


it is usually means i am talking to myself


but your comments are fair


i can expand the language


and be more generous to my readers


‪that's why i shared


Ramos:  ‪i think this is way more poetic:‬‬‬


‪"so autonomy is a being that is complete


‪and one can use whatever leverage


‪to get there


‪some of it is bad, like stealing to better oneself


‪some like inheritance and privilege is kind of neutral


‪some like educating oneself is definitely good"


i love that


i get it


it's inclusive and that's what revolution is all about


and justice as well


Guerrier:  ‪nice point‬‬‬


ok. let me go re-write, i will share again later. thanks‬‬‬




one week later




Guerrier:  ‪hola‬‬


Ramos:  ‪you've been working on the text?


Guerrier:  ‪not exactly, i took each line and attempted to expand them




i stopped


and re-wrote just the 5


as short rhetorics to be explored later


as i work on the installation


let me forward the final edit


Ramos:  ‪ok‬‬





Call for justice and equity has always been revolutionary.


Call for revolution, at times, is conflated with call for justice.


Space for revolutionary calls and its discourse is not marginal and has ontological implications.


Within the penumbra of a call lies open, libre/free commons shaped by ethics and aesthetics.


An Archimedean lever also maneuvers towards autonomy.





Guerrier:  ‪subtle edit


but i think it was what i originally wanted to offer as a text


Ramos:  ‪yes


that first sentence is great


i mean it says it all


didn't think it was about expanding as much as clarifying anyway‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪i tend question my process‬‬


only to end up near my starting point


for our current show at Dimensions Variable


Margrethe and i talked about gut knowledge


and it is more and more a position that i like


knowing instinctually with being fully able to express


Ramos:  ‪the intuition or gut is still there‬‬


but it has to be refined sometimes


the first line I'm on board with


Guerrier:  ‪and trying and working towards an adequate expression‬‬


Ramos:  ‪i think the rest of the lines can use the same refinement


what are you trying to say with the second line?


what do you mean?


Guerrier:  ‪i mean sometimes when people ask for revolution what they


really want is justice‬‬


Ramos:  ‪but that's the first line‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪and that they think changing a whole system might be best‬‬


Ramos:  ‪so basically - justice does not mean changing the system‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪the first line is historical and after the fact.  the declaration of

independence then revolution


no, justice should be the base of the system


it is always there


even when we see acts of injustice


Ramos:  if you are asking for revolution then it means you are questioning justice


Guerrier:  ‪we know there is justice to redress the situation‬‬


i think it is questioning the system that should administer justice


Ramos:  ‪wait


let me slow this down a bit


line 1


call for revolution = call for justice




Guerrier:  ‪no‬‬


Ramos:  ‪the word "conflated" means fused‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪it depends on when and where‬‬


no, conflated means confused for


also means use instead of


Ramos:  ‪verb (used with object), conflated, conflating.‬‬


‪1.‬ ‪to fuse into one entity; merge:


‪to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.


Guerrier:  ‪yeah, the definition is correct but usage imply a little a bit more


Ramos: then why don't you just say that?


‪i mean - why don't you use the word "confused"‬‬


Guerrier: because confusion is a dead end


Ramos:  ‪but usage and definition are almost inverse‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪at times‬‬


‪the beauty of conflate is in bringing things together that expresses intentions




and desires


confusion highlights the mistake in that choice




Ramos:  ‪i see what you mean‬‬


so then you don't want to say anything specific


people will have to interpret a bit


and they might have different takes on it


Guerrier:  ‪because there are several reasons why we conflate‬‬




Ramos:  ‪if conflate means one thing to you and another to me - that's ok with you‬‬


so i see revolution = justice


and you see revolution is confused with justice


Guerrier:  ‪no, i see revolution = justice‬‬


and revolution doesn't guarantee justice


i see both


but i know that emotions and desire have shaped where one might be on the spectrum


because of that, i like conflate


conflate implies that the reasons why one thinks revolution = justice is not always known


and that is why line 1 is necessary


Ramos:  ‪line one is the only one i identify with‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪it respect the desire for the call‬‬


line 2 then steps back and warns that revolution may not always deliver


Ramos:  ‪but i don't think it says what you are intending - i think the usage of the word conflate is conflicting‬‬


line 2 doesn't say that for me - i have to read it three times


and wonder how you are using the word marginal


Guerrier:  ‪line 2 for me acknowledges history‬‬


‬‬‪and human failings‬‬


Ramos:  ‪why can't you just say "revolution = justice but does't alway deliver justice"‬‬


that's line 1 and 2 no?


Guerrier:  ‪yes, exactly conflate is conflicting‬‬


and necessary


i can't say "revolution = justice but doest alway deliver justice"


i have


but i think i like the space in between each thought


Guerrier:  ‪there is another point‬‬


when say the police kills someone


like in Ferguson


and we don't have enough info to satisfy our desire for justice


some calls for revolution


others calls for justice


Ramos:  ‪i understand the spacing requirement‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪two calls‬‬


not in conflict per see


‪but addresses the situation differently‬‬


Ramos:  ‪but the way you explain it and the way you write it is almost polar opposite‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪i understand you point‬‬


Ramos:  ‪revolution = justice‬‬




revolution does not alway bring justice




sometimes we have to separate the two as two entities


now I'm assuming


but you get the picture


speak to the masses - that's my point


i mean - i have to look up words to get this stuff and even then i don't really get it


and i want to get it because it comes from you


but it's frustrating


why can't i just get it


and feel it


Guerrier:  ‪i dont mean frustrate‬‬


but i don't believe talking to the masses requires the easiest words


Ramos:  ‪simpler‬‬


simpler message


Guerrier:  ‪now, i think society needs complex ideas‬‬


not complicated


Ramos:  ‪simple is complicated‬‬


i don't mean simplistic


i mean simple


Guerrier:  ‪simpler may not get the point across






i think these are simple though


and a way that try to embrace multiple points at all times


about marginal


Ramos:  ‪that's like having two people talking to me at once‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪someone told me that they think nowadays that people calling for revolution and justice is happening again‬‬


Ramos:  ‪again - when has it stopped happening?‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪one person with two voices‬‬


that was my questions


i said it never stopped


Ramos:  ‪one person with two voices is not intelligible‬‬


Guerrier:  ‪other things took up the main stage and attention of popular culture‬‬


and theses calls might have seemed to be marginal


but were not


one person with two voices could possibly be unintelligible


Ramos:  ‪we are talking about two different things‬‬


you are that person with two voices


and this might not make any sense‬‬