We accepted loss of control. It means partnerships where people bring in proposals that were not our own, bringing in artists who proposed projects that were not theirs but also bringing in other artists again. It was not about the idea of a curator who is on top of the machine and decides everything that comes in. No, we opened and sometimes this led to beautiful surprises and also — I have to be honest — disasters.

I really accept that there's people out there who have smarter ideas that I have. The only thing is that my job is to get them in here.

By opening up [to external initiatives and projects] we didn't have to invent every format ourselves.

If you have one curator, you have one explosion. If you have more people involved in creating a program you can create more explosions. And if you can create more explosions this might be the start of your combustion engine that you want to go forward.

[Art centers] They're not investing in bringing people together but they're investing enough in bringing art works together. And I think that's a mistake. It is in the first place about bringing people together.

There's a very little art centers that are aware of this [digital] revolution. The main capacity we have today as art centers is our communication through the social media and I see a lot of art centers struggling with that.

That is what we call « focused programs ».They're basically the idea that combining the strength of a festival with the strength of a seasonal program. It means that we can program a bit further ahead and that we use the idea of a festival that we work topical, thematical. We use this combination of the two.

Do not underestimate the audience as part of the engine or as part of the explosions.

Since I'm here we tried to provoke small explosions. Small people driven ways of changing things sometimes very simple sometimes a bit bigger but never revolutionary in itself but maybe the adding of up all these different explosions might be a bit of a revolution or at least a strong evolution.

I prefer to talk about small explosions rather than revolution.

Can art save the world? My answer is very clear, very simple, very short—no. Then there is this another question, "Can art change the world?" and there my answer is very short as well, it's also no. But I do believe that people can change so in that sense if people can change and art can really change people then, there's some hope in the purpose of art.

We as a people are fundamentally taught that conformity equals success.

Chance is not anything that happens to you. It's something you give to yourself. But you have got to ask for it. You've got to listen for it. And you shouldn't cut yourself off from it by over-analyzing and over-optimizing your life.

You have an opportunity to influence your own destiny. And free will is shaped by everything you do and have seen and all the people you've interacted with.

Make things a little bit uncomfortable for yourself sometimes so that you have to pay more attention.

Chance becomes this cumulative thing and not, you know, a lightning bolt from the sky.

I think the myth of the lone genius has been pretty well debunked at this point. And while there are rare geniuses who are brilliant all on their own, the game isn't really over for the rest of us.

When you're feeling stuck, don't look for the end goal. Just keep exploring. And explore with people, if you can.

Chance happens when you say what you want.

Being given a chance is different than taking that chance for yourself.

Labels are a very limiting kind of thing, even if you happen to choose those labels yourself. And I think the problem is that labels represent a bunch of nouns, and work feels very much like a verb.

Education is love.

Love lives in the now.

"Wear a silly hat. If you don't own a silly hat, in the next 30 days I want you to go out and buy a silly hat, and occasionally wear it"

Necesitamos aprender un lenguaje común. {…} Entender cómo podemos conversar para hacer que las cosas pasen.