Ignacio Nevado, better known as Ampparito, was born in Madrid in 1991. He studied Fine Arts and, after completing his education, moved to London, where he worked for an advertising agency. Much of his work can be found in public space, where his installations challenge conventional perceptions of everyday objects and situations. By surprising viewers and prompting them to stop and reconsider what they are seeing, Ampparito seeks to establish a dialogue between the artwork and its audience. Rather than directing viewers toward a specific interpretation, he encourages each person to construct their own meaning based on a particular time and place. As a result, his installations affect every observer differently.
You studied Fine Arts in Madrid and later moved to London, where you worked in an advertising agency. What motivated you to develop your artistic practice in public space?
When I left university, I found myself facing two problems. First, although I continued my artistic practice, I had no way of showing what I was creating because I had no access to galleries, institutions, or other exhibition channels. Second, I lacked the space to store the work I was producing.
Creating pieces in the street solved both problems at once.
Your work cannot easily be categorized within a single artistic style. Would you say that, more than a style, you have developed a methodology based on the subversion of the meaning of objects?
I like to think of it that way. I do not have a recognizable formal style defined by a specific aesthetic. What unifies my work is the method through which I approach different subjects.
One resource I frequently use is attacking the functionality of objects or situations, although that is not the only strategy. I enjoy destroying utility in order to rebuild meaning from more poetic or symbolic premises. I love creating metaphors from mechanical processes or seemingly uninteresting situations and taking rhetorical figures literally.
Often, I do precisely what one is supposedly not meant to do. It feels like arriving first at a place that has not been explored, not because it is inaccessible, but because nobody considered it interesting. This methodology, which I am still developing, involves approaching complex subjects from a naïve perspective with the goal of generating double meanings, allegories, or absurd situations that challenge what we take for granted.
Philosopher Franco “Bifo” Berardi argues that human beings tend to behave like a herd because meanings, norms, functions, and identities are predetermined by socioeconomic systems. How would you relate your work to this condition? Do you think art creates a space to question it?
I do not think it is so much about questioning it as it is about taking it into account and using it as a creative tool.
Human beings, when acting collectively, are capable of both the best and the worst. Rational judgment often becomes blurred, allowing passions to take center stage. That is precisely what makes it interesting: unfiltered, spontaneous, and authentic behaviors emerge.
That said, it depends on the piece. Some works require intimacy or a sense of security in order for people to engage with them. Otherwise, individuals may be held back by the embarrassment that often comes from being part of a crowd and not wanting to stand out or make mistakes.
Beneath the sense of confusion created by your more poetic works, is there a critical dimension aimed at challenging common sense?
Confusion is a powerful way to activate curiosity, especially in an environment as saturated with stimuli as the street.
All of my works maintain a strange relationship with common sense. The act of creating many of them directly challenges it, and that is where the confusion originates. Questions arise such as: Why would someone do something that goes against their own interests? Why do something in such a complicated way?
That is the trigger. And, as the saying goes, common sense is often the least common of all senses.
Some of your works are highly interactive. How does public participation influence the activation of these pieces?
In these works, what is truly interesting is people’s behavior.
The object itself is simply a device that enables or encourages a kind of performance carried out spontaneously by the public.
In January 2019, you created an intervention at Barcelona’s Sant Antoni Market that invited public interaction. What relationship existed between the intervention and the participation of passersby? What inspired this particular piece?
In this case, participation was everything.
The work emerged from a reflection on neutrality in competition, or more broadly, on the impossibility of achieving true equality. In sports, we attempt to create conditions in which two opponents compete on equal terms, but that is impossible when we consider that everyone comes from different socioeconomic contexts and possesses a unique genetic inheritance.
Chance plays a huge role in everything. This project introduced an additional variable into the playing field. Nobody chooses their bone structure or cardiovascular capacity, so the intervention introduced another factor that could benefit someone who might not otherwise be considered the strongest competitor.
There is hope in that. And if you lose, you can always blame the court.
How do context and surroundings influence the conceptualization of your work?
I often say that my interventions are small accents that activate a context.
The truly powerful element is the place itself; the artwork merely acts as a trigger. The better the location, the less invasive the intervention needs to be—sometimes just a small detail is enough to activate everything around it.
That said, I have developed a professional deformation. I have always worked this way. I need context as an excuse to work, as a framework that provides limits and subjects to explore.
As an active social media user, what impact do you think these platforms have on the construction of collective imagination? Do you think it is positive that the way we disseminate knowledge and content has changed?
I think social media has changed everything.
The ephemeral nature of these kinds of artistic interventions means they are often photographed and documented. Because they break with everyday routine, people naturally feel compelled to share them.
At first, I treated social media simply as a way to showcase my work. Increasingly, however, it has become part of the medium itself. Many pieces are conceived specifically for the digital environment—considering how they will be viewed on screens, how scale changes, or how software interfaces frame them.
Context is not only the street; the internet is also a context.
Your social media posts often include contextual explanations of your projects. Why is providing context important to you? Do you think it can influence the interpretation of your work?
As I have already mentioned, context is the starting point for everything.
I like to personalize my works, and I think most artists do the same. By anchoring them to a specific place and time, they can respond to what is happening in that particular moment.
However, once something is created, control over its meaning is lost. It is the public who ultimately gives meaning—or does not—through their own experiences, memories, and interpretations.
Finally, why do you think there has been such an exponential growth in urban art projects at both local and international levels in recent years?
I believe that the impermeability of traditional exhibition spaces pushed creators to seek alternative places to show their work.
The democratic nature of acting in public space was fundamental. Anyone could do it, nobody expected it, and therefore everything felt surprising.
In the post-economic-crisis context, urban art also became an effective way of producing public artworks at a relatively low cost. There is a saying that murals appeal to politicians because they tend to last about as long as a political term in office.
