"Archaeologies of the future" it's an invented story. As in some kind of roman narrative where it can be seen mixed up several situations and characters at the same plane. This installation tangle up the geologic continuity and shows the beings of the future in the past, already confined into a museographic language, of a gallery, conserved; collected. The museographic forms have been used recurrently on Miguél Cardena's installations, and the beings and objects he creates, inspired on natural objects, come from frequent visits to natural history museums and nature museums. 



Beyond, this language -understood here as the use of dioramas, mockups, and in this case, the recreation of a tectonic plate- refers to a positive, scientific and direct knowledge that is truncated evidently because the objects are handmade, invented and present inside a very personal and subjective aesthetic. The confrontation of these two languages can be seen as a challenge to the scientific positivism, to the ¨Museum¨ institution, but also to the contemporary rejection of the primary instinct to see and copy what is seen. 

This ambiguity, in addition to confusing, permeates other aspects of the installation, such as height, which does not allow to see the objects in detail or as the separation between a floor and another, which once again, truncates the continuity of meaning. 


In your series is very important the use of the museographic language, especially the diorama (a mockup used for recreate the natural environment of an specimen). There's also a recurrent reference to the language of the natural history museums. Is there a story behind this interest?


 am interested in thinking of the museum of natural history as an archaic monument that has been transformed, nowadays, in a place of interest for a public that is disconnected from nature; something unique to our times. I am interested also in the world created

 inside the museum, where elements such as the diorama become in ways of recreating the outside world from simple illusions. That's the value of the museum, its potential to recreate the outside world.

It seems to me interesting in thinking on those

 reconfiguration/ recreation attempts of a natural habitat, which are false or imagined recreations. In this case it is as if a tectonic plate is recreated.


Those are interpretations of things that exist, but have gone through a filter and I recreate them again on a different way. The animals, the characters, when removing them from their habitat they can be observed, they are in front of the observer and thus comment on the museographic language. This is a very particular language, one that isolates to be able to approach.


It is also captivating the employment of the totem in this and other installations. I don't know much about it, let's talk about it.

The totem, for me, is maybe a way of seeing the art object linked to something millennial: a piece that is born from a tree or a stone, as if the element were transformed and let see the figure. I like the idea that a trunk, a mountain, or a stone acquire an intelligible form. It is something so close to the way of understanding the world through the art, something very primary.

Let's talk about that subtle dislocation that you do to the historic narratives or archeologic.

In this case the narrative (layers of stone as geological ages) corresponds to the logic of the museum. I have subverted it, because it does not obey to a logical order of the species evolution or the geologic ages of the planet. I borrowed that form because we have learned to read it that way and it works for me and it serves me to read my sculptures in space.

I want the observer to feel small compare to the size and height of the "geological ages" and feel (because is a visual experience) that each one is the support of the next and that scaffolding is a precarious construction, a recounted version of the world that we need to understand it, otherwise everything collapses and we are left in chaos.