My theoretical research is intertwined with my visual practice — a connection I consider to be like those affinities between art and science and, in particular, the social sciences, an important thread in my investigations.
Thus, in uniting the arts and sciences it is above all a question of complementarity, and occasionally of opposition. The distinction between theoretical and practical conjoined approaches appears predominantly only when it takes its final form: in one case it is a presentation that takes the form of a publication, while in the other one it is visual. 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.
Both theory and practice respond to the same artistic problems, and the questions that appear in one are often found (and sometimes answered by) 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 visual 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 of 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.