This project is a derivation of the "Warike"project. After researching the "Warike"and "La Araña" artists spaces that functioned in Lima during the eighties, I became fascinated with the questions they constantly raised through their methods of producing and distributing work. During a presentation of the research one of the comments I received was that it would be much more interesting to revive the spaces instead of historizing them.

So I decided to try to make furniture myself. I bought a set of Sunset books from the 60's and 70's, the same books they had used to start copying things and sell and immersed myself in learning how to construct furniture. One of the things that became clear quite quickly was how art and craft are treated completely different, even inside the college structure. But, surprisingly, the furniture received much more care than the art. Technicians will rush to correct me:"That finishing would be ok if you were making art, but you are making furniture, it has to be well made". I was shocked by how everyone assumes that art, specially done by the struggling starting artist, doesn't have to well made, the ideas are all that matter, the object it's considered just a sign. But the affection people have with the objects it's still quite real. Every time I walked around college with my pieces the people that doesn't live inside the art world (visitors, staff, etc.) are really affectionated to the work, they touch it, they asked me if I did it by myself, they ask me if I'll sell it, they congratulate me. The funny thing is this happens at the same time when everyone around me is carrying paintings and sculptures. But they are invisible. People don't connect to them in the same way.

After doing a pair of kids chairs that can be repositioned and assume different functions, I realized that I was interested in exploring exactly the same kinds of boundaries that "Warike" and "La Araña" explored. Then the work became more than just about the objects, but about the spaces and relations this objects occupy. The types of affective and economical relations they can establish with different types of publics, and what types of public and context am I really interested to dialogue with.I began testing this pieces (I have several of them now) in different settings and tried to establish different economical relations with them. The map drawer set (the only non-kid's furniture) was made especially for the interim show and was shown as "Art", in an exhibition context environment. I listed it for sale on craiglist and ebay, but that was a complete failure. I advertised it at college and I am on the process of selling it to be used as furniture by a friend who will use it to keep her drawings. What I learned from that was that impersonal methods of selling don't really wok for this project. I want to know the people who are buying the pieces , I want to talk to them. I want them to know that this was produced in an "Art " environment, although they are paying a furniture price and using them as furniture. It will always be "Art"as well. And why shouldn't it? This pieces had as long conceptual consideration as any conceptual art, they had also hours of skilled and careful craftmanship. They are full with meaning and are objects that carry lots of utopian propositions and called for a thoughtful interaction. Why should they be less art if they are sell to normal people instead of the art crowd? If they live on a living room and played on continuosly instead of being storaged and protected from use. Why can't art be useful?