EC: One can say that certain differences exist between a short (or long) work of fiction/documentary, and video art. Perhaps the most obvious difference — to my way of thinking, and taking into consideration some evaluative definitions— are the possibilities for narrative structuring which, in the case of short fictional features and/or documentaries (that is, introduction, processing and development), and also video art, are often ignored or toyed with, transforming them into a specific and metaphoric idea. This structure is formed almost always and recurrently, around an image or concept which generally incorporates an idea of space in conjunction with the image.

It should be remembered here that video art emerged in the mid-sixties, as an opening in the use of audio visual records, and was used basically at first to document ephemeral works (performances, installations, etc). In fact, the first work of video art is produced by the Korean artist and musician Nam June Paik — considered to be the father of video creation — in 1965. Subsequently this more "democratic" and less "professional" camera action was extended to autonomous works going beyond simple documentation. I believe, that the most important thing, in any case, is that video art emerged as a direct link to other manifestations in art. Precisely because of this trans-disciplinary, hybrid, undefined and deeply "contaminated" vocation, when compared to other artistic languages, and the omnipresence of images due to the media, it is my belief that space should be made available to artists who retain a critical and inquiring individuality on this tranquilizing aspect of our everyday visual and real environment.

For this reason, both the "Inquieta Imagen" presentation and the "Espacios a la Experimentación" showcase have included rather than excluded short experimental semi-fictional features or documentaries as well as work linked more closely to video art, such as video-performances or video-installations, among others. In any case, by next year I believe it will be necessary to make specific mentions of a large amount of audiovisual matter reaching us with very differing tendencies, even though it is at times scattered and difficult to define.

DR: What advice would you give someone who has an awakening interest in video art?

EC: I would not "advise" them, but rather would tell them to take risks, to dare, and film, even with a unreliable and/or borrowed camera. It's also important that artists as well as viewers not be prejudiced, that they be completely open to appreciating and understanding works to which they might not have access to earlier, and which may at times seem peculiar or strange, or unintelligible, but which — with a little effort and good will — will later be very valuable to them in their formation, in their know-how and in their intention to change certain things, if they wish to do so.

DR: Do you consider public interest and acceptance to be good?

EC: I believe that even though it is unusual to see this type of audio-visual material, due precisely to the overwhelming presence of conventional and manipulative type of cinema and television, in general there has been very positive and enthusiastic attendance and feedback from the public — above all young people. Our audience is growing, forming gradually within our usual museum cycles, where we explore very varied aesthetic and/or conceptual projects.