My theoretical research is very closely related to my plastic work. To a certain extent these links are of the same nature as those that unite art and science and, in particular, social sciences, which are at the centre of my investigations.
Thus, it is above all a question of complementarity, but also, sometimes, of opposition. The differences between these two forms of approaches to art are manifested above all in the final medium: in one case it is a presentation that takes the form of a publication, while in the other one it is a visual form. It can therefore be a formal opposition and not a substantive one, but everyone working on a plastic creation and/or a publication knows that these "formal" issues lead to much deeper differences. It is not enough to transpose (or translate) one language into another, but each one has its own methodologies and working logics.
Even so, both theory and practice respond to the same artistic problems, and the questions that appear in one are often found in the others. And often, the answers found in one case are questioned in the other. But this dynamic does not only cover the relationship between theoretical research and plastic works, it is also found, separately, within each of these practices. It is in this sense that there is no fundamental difference between them.
It is thus easy to visualise this continuity between projects on Berlin and research on the same city, or between the survey of art districts and the video on the Faubourg Saint-Denis in Paris, as well as between this same video and research on beauty and new technologies, or between the issues on Latin America and the work on the Botanical Expedition.