Nowadays, the role of the artist is for the most part managerial. Public relations, project management and application, and various paperwork consume about eighty per cent of the artist’s time – curiously, this is also the case with today’s farmers. This is something to be publicly acknowledged, because many still want to believe in the figure of the artist we have inherited from Romanticism, that is, someone devoted solely to creativity. Nor should we forget that, despite all the vaunted virtues of so-called collaborative, public artwork, the artist always ends up having to do most of the “dirty work” management. The artist has to cook, prepare the table, and do the dishes for a determined social subject to partake in the meal – a humble position that doesn’t conform to the idea of a unique, genius artist. By pushing the managerial aspect to the limit, I seek to define the limitation of that form of art. I confront myself with that exhausting task as the opposite of creative process.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that artists who attempt to influence the world have to at some point make compromises with the current ruling structures. Quite often, past avant-gardes remained inspiring children’s games because they lacked the commitment to set up efficient transformative organizations and procedures. My experience of working within national state structures or supranational bodies such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertfication (UNCCD) or FAO has been as fascinating for me as the beekeeping that I learned from my father and neighbors. Social insects are interesting to study as a state organization; states, as a kind of corporation, have the capacity and power to convert a wish or an idea into an operative object or system. For me, that is the perfect Gesamtkunstwerk, the total artwork dream of utopian artists. In the end, I find structured efforts of consensus and coordination within the mess of mankind and individual agency quite moving and tender.

– Fernando García Dory