The concept ‘Imaginary Property’ comes from an essay by Florian Schneider, where the author points to the authorship of the images with proper legal terms, even though the first paragraphs led me to think about it from the poetic sense I’ve worked through painting, my own claim through the pictoric.

Imaginary property is a concept produced at the intersection of the pictures’ (property) evolution and the evolution of property (imaginary). It’s not just a paradox: it’s a society’s oscillating problem after the Guy Debord spectacle, when he says that the <<autonomous movement of the non-alive>> has become trivial, pero completely encrusted in biopolitics. Imaginary property is a paradox containing its own paradox–a recurring redundancy, so to speak. This redundancy not only appears when <<all the Cretans lie>>, but also when anyone, Cretan or not, has become <<a liar lying to themselves>>, turning the paradox into a tautology–one that isn’t true nor false.

In my creative process, which is post-photographic, there exists a double appropriation, in the sense that Schneider coined, the subjects are photographed by me in a kind of possession of their essence and after the painting I take ownership of that relational link between the subject, the image and my desire.

The digital image is re-captured based on the technical capabilities of my painting and it alludes to the construction, through its own pixel, using the grid I fill square by square.