In an interview with Merve Unsal, Carlos Motta, a Colombia born, New York City-based artist reflects on democracy, specifically looking at issues of equality and representation of immigrants and LGBTQ subjects. Motta uses strategies from sociology and documentary genres to engage with specific political events. His recent video and text-based projects investigate “democracy” from different social perspectives in an attempt to insist on exposing fundamental faults of democracy in regards to issues of equality and representation of immigrants and sexually “diverse” subjects. As a Latin American, U.S based artist he has amply reflected on U.S intervention as a form of exporting and implementing the ideal of American democracy abroad.

Merve Unsal: I’m interested in the relation you draw between Scandinavian and Latin American countries as a way to expose contradictions or assumptions about democracy. Why these countries?

Carlos Motta: When I was growing up in Colombia it was almost commonplace to think of the “Swedish Model” as the only truly democratic system. This simple assumption always resonated in my mind and I wondered if, how and why would Scandinavian countries be “ideal” democratic societies. I developed a project titled The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny where I interviewed several Latin American immigrants living and working in Sweden specifically with issues of discrimination and xenophobia. You may know that during the 1970s and 1980s thousands of immigrants arrived to Sweden as political refugees escaping the brutal military regimes that prosecuted leftist ideologues and activists in Latin America. Such large numbers of immigrants, and not only Latin American but also Eastern European, Middle Eastern, etc. have become Swedes and part of the system. It is clear that the process has represented serious cultural and political challenges.

The political context that informs most of my work are the years of the Cold War in Latin America, roughly from 1950 onwards, The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny is a work about these “challenges” to the Swedish welfare state but it is narrated from the perspective of Latin American immigrants whose political background is inevitably entangled with the vast web of ideological conflicts that were a byproduct of the Cold War. This project layers two almost contradictory histories of democracy, the Swedish and that of certain Latin American countries, not simplistically, but strategically to expose fundamental historical, economic, cultural, political and ethnic conditions that have directed radically different understandings of democracy.

MU: I was struck by my own ignorance about some of the issues you raise in The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny. I knew about issues of immigration in Europe such as the plight of Muslims in France and Turks in Germany—stories that have resulted in violence and much reported international controversy. These issues in Sweden seem to be much more complicated but there is a conspicuous absence of violence. The presence of so many Latin Americans in Sweden is contrary to most people’s ideas about the ethnographic composition/make up of Nordic countries. Would you comment on the reasons why you think the general public does not seem to be aware of the issues that you were dealing with?

CM: I suppose that your awareness of these issues depends on your perspective, interest and location. If you live in northern Europe in countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, debates on immigration are now part of your everyday life. Norway and Finland have very closed borders. These countries have been skeptical and kept a firm hand in regards to immigration perhaps in an attempt to protect the Welfare State.

Sweden has been different. For example, as I started to mention above, during the 1970s they welcomed close to 30,000 political refugees from Chile after Allende’s defeat. During the 1980s close to 10,000 Salvadorians that escaped the civil war also sought refuge in Sweden. Sweden has a history of welcoming immigrants regardless of their ideology, and they have been invested in liberal human rights work. The notion of ‘open borders’ has been one of its key manifestations. Nowadays, things have started to change as the general political climate in that country turned right. The emphasis is less on collective and more in individual interests, neo-liberal style.

Since the beginning of the War in Iraq however, 30,000 Iraqis have arrived in Sweden. But Swedish society is very fearful of the impact of immigration in its traditions and on its societal system at large. I personally think that common Swedish citizens feel the stability of the Welfare State is threatened by so many immigrants (especially Arabs) coming in. They fear a big change in their culture. And in fact Swedish demographics, language and customs have changed.

A student of mine in Stockholm told me an anecdote that struck me as significant: One of her classmates had an Arabic newspaper. My student was unaware that her friend understood that language and asked her why she had that newspaper. Her friend responded that she was learning Arabic as a civic duty to adapt to the “new” Sweden. I can understand how a traditional mind may find these facts to be an “attack” on tradition, family values and culture. Although this may not be widely reported by the media in Southern European countries and the United States, it is a very pressing issue for the Northern European countries.

Carlos Motta, The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, 2008, publication, 189 pages, published by Konsthall C, IASPIS and Kulturradet, Stockholm

MU: You mentioned the cultural effects of the influx of immigrants. In particular, I’m wondering about the social dynamic resulting from an increase in immigrants who on average tend to be younger—and with less experience, they also tend to be cheaper labor.  As people become fearful of these changes, this shift can manifest itself in xenophobia. I’m also thinking about the US—in particular about New York—and the aftermath of the recession. As a New York-based artist, your home base is implicated or tacitly referred to in your work. Can you comment on how your work reflects on xenophobia in the United States and immigration/diaspora in New York?

CM: In 2005 I made a video essay titled Letter to my father (standing by the fence), a work narrated in first person in which I share my experience as an immigrant in New York in the aftermath of 9/11 and juxtapose it to audio testimonies I recorded from a wide range of visitors to Ground Zero. This work was born out of being astonished by the growing paranoia, both from the government and the people on the street, against immigrants.  The highly discriminatory attitudes certainly fueled the debates and policy shifts around immigration during the Bush Administration. I have experienced to a degree the struggle of becoming American both legally and in terms of cultural prejudice. I am now a legal permanent resident but I continue to follow in great detail the nonsensical hyper-conservative approach to immigration in this country and the growth of social movements around these issues.

Carlos Motta, The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, 2008, Views of the 8-channel video installation at Konsthall C, Stockholm, Spring 2008

Carlos Motta, The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, 2008, Views of the 8-channel video installation at Konsthall C, Stockholm, Spring 2008

MU: In your work, you use a variety of interview strategies. In some of your projects, you interview the ‘man or woman on the street’ and in others, you interview specialists and professionals. In your project The Good Life you interviewed a large number of people on the streets and made relatively short interviews while in the The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny you interviewed a select group of knowledgeable professionals that engaged in structured conversations with you. What prompted this change from work to work?

CM: In The Good Life my intention was to create an archive of public opinion composed of hundreds of responses to a set of questions gathered on the streets of 12 Latin American capitals. I was interested in conceiving a method to document the opinion of a non-specialized group of people that would respond without professional knowledge to questions on the relationship between US intervention and democracy in these countries. I was looking for “street” knowledge if you will. The Good Life proposes both in subject matter and methodology a specific critique of democracy from the perspective of its public perception and its effect on the formation of public and personal subjectivities, so I had to think of a pertinent way to facilitate this. The Good Life was critically informed by methods of sociology used to gather data and information, as well as from certain traditions of journalism that use the interview form in order to produce “public opinion.” This project however also wishes to question the very means that are used to produce this kind of information: surveys, questionnaires, video interviews, reporters and reports, etc.

In The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, I wanted to speak to (Latin American) immigrants who were actively and professionally engaged in combating discrimination and xenophobia in Sweden. These individual’s work is critical to expanding the monolithic narrative on immigration in that country. An important aspect of this work is that it highlights the fact that the discourse on immigration and legislation as well as most work developed by State sponsored institutions and organizations is controlled by non-immigrant Swedes. Immigrants play a very small role in determining their own fate. By choosing to interview people who strongly reject this fact, I attempted to document their adamant work, which is often underreported. The interviewees in this project have very specific positions in regards to the need to shift power in order to gain inclusive democratic representation. In terms of the choice of method, my intention was to create a document of their practical and theoretical views in book form.

Carlos Motta, Video still, Interview with Karla López from The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, 2008

Carlos Motta, Video Still, Interview with Carlos Diaz, The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, 2008

MU: Your own role as interviewer is also different in the two projects. In The Good Life the viewer doesn’t hear you ask the questions. The questions appear written on the screen and you ask the same five questions to everyone. In The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny you direct the conversations and you are, in a way, more active in the work. What strategy did you employ for those videos?

CM: I would not say that I am withdrawn in The Good Life as an interviewer. Although you don’t hear me pose the questions you see them written on the screen and my voice conversing with the interviewees throughout the interviews. However I carefully decided not to call attention to my personality in the work. I did not want to use a “Michael Moore” style of interviewing because I didn’t want to be a protagonist in that way. The emphasis was on people and their specific responses. In The Immigrant Files: Democracy is Not Dead; It Just Smells Funny, the interviews are open dialogues and conversations between the interviewees and myself yet the flow of the narrative is definitely determined by my questions.

MU: What is the role of language in your work? Considering that language has often been used as a tool to repress different groups in society, how do you choose to employ language in your works?

CM: Language is foundational to my work. I am interested in exploring the way that the meaning of certain words may shift according to whom, how and when they are spoken. On the one hand my projects are ways to analyze discourses around specific words: democracy, power, intervention, etc. On the other hand the works are literally language based conversations and dialogues.

Regarding the issue of immigration in Sweden the issue of language is an important and controversial one. It is believed and implemented by authorities that learning Swedish should the first step to a healthy integration to Swedish society yet there is no effort to preserve and teach the immigrant’s mother tongue in school. This is a small example to show the complexity of these problems. “Becoming” a Swede shouldn’t mean obliterating you own language, culture and traditions. There must be a way to conceive of a pluralist, inclusive policy of integration.

MU: Could you talk about the project you are working on now?

CM: The work that I’m developing now is titled Pride Campaign: Somewhere Over the Rainbow. It is also an interview based work that attempts to give a detailed look at the development and history of LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) rights in four countries with radically different legislations and cultures: Colombia, Norway, South Korea and the United States. I am interviewing dozens of activist, academics, politicians, legislators, historians, etc. on the current status of sexual and identity politics. I am interested in comparing the cultural backgrounds and political platforms that have (not) allowed a progressive outlook on the LGBTQ community. I am in Norway now, the country that has a most advanced legislation of the world. It has been very interesting to understand how this “paradise” has shaped and whether it is a paradise at all. Legislation and cultural acceptance in this country have been based on issues of “respectability” and “family values,” that is on an image of equality based pretty much on a heterosexual standard. It is indeed magnificent that LGBTQ people can marry, adopt kids, etc. but what happens at a cultural level when your identity defies categories for example? I was recently talking to Tone Hellesund, a researcher at the Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies in Bergen, researching the narratives of LGBTQ youth suicide in Norway. According to her research, young people complain about how they feel completely different and alienated from society. They do not want to be different. Will LGBTQ individuals ever belong? In a strict political sense it is a democracy, but oftentimes it does not feel that way culturally.

Carlos Motta is a Colombian born, New York based artist whose work has been individually presented at PS1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, New York; Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia; Konsthall C, Stockholm; Fundación Alzate Avendaño, Bogotá; Smack Mellon, Brooklyn; and Art in General, New York and included in group exhibitions such as the X Biennale de Lyon 2009; The Greenroom, CCS Bard Hessel Museum of Art, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY; Soft Manipulation, Casino Luxemburg; 5×5 Castelló, Espai d’Art Contemporani de Castelló, Spain; System Error, Palazzo delle Papesse, Siena, Italy; and Democracy in America, Creative Time, New York, amongst others. He is a graduate of the Whitney Museum Independent Study Program, was named a Guggenheim Foundation Fellow in 2008, and received grants from the Art Matters Foundation (New York, 2007), the Cisneros Fontanals Foundation (Miami, 2008) and the New York State Council of the Arts (NYSCA) (New York 2010). www.la-buena-vida.info; www.carlosmotta.com.