The corpus of one hundred works attributed to Anto Lloveras constitutes a rare instance of sustained transdisciplinary coherence within contemporary art practice. Rather than dispersing into stylistic eclecticism, this body of work consolidates itself around a precise epistemic ambition: to reconceive art not as representation or symbolic commentary, but as an operative infrastructure capable of reorganising social, spatial and affective relations. The quantitative layer distribution—where Art (22%) and Urbanism (18%) dominate—reveals a strategic alignment between aesthetic agency and territorial intervention.
This alignment situates Lloveras’s production within a lineage that runs from Beuys’s “social sculpture” to contemporary forms of relational urbanism, yet it exceeds both by articulating what he terms “socioplastics”: a procedural logic whereby symbolic form, civic utility and ecological sensitivity collapse into a single ontological field. In this sense, the work resists the binary between artistic autonomy and applied design. The city is not merely a backdrop or site of inscription but becomes a mutable anatomical entity, susceptible to incision, grafting and prosthesis. Projects such as Fragile Anatomies or 5th City function less as discrete artworks than as epistemic devices, rendering visible the latent metabolic processes of urban life. What emerges is a conception of art as systemic glue: a connective tissue binding architecture, pedagogy, ecology and civic imagination into a continuous morphogenetic field.
This systemic ambition is further reinforced by the architectural and urban layers, which together account for over one third of the corpus. Here, architecture does not operate as a stabilising typology but as a condition of tectonic vulnerability. The recurring motif of “tectonic austerity” foregrounds material restraint, provisionality and ethical sufficiency as counterweights to the spectacle-driven economies of contemporary urbanism. Shelters, mutable habitats and pocket parks are not conceived as finalised objects but as adaptive interfaces, negotiating between precarity and care. In parallel, urbanism becomes the primary operational field through which socioplastics acquires civic traction. The city is repeatedly treated as a living body subject to both trauma and regeneration, a conceptual move most explicit in the logic of “urban taxidermy”. Here, the metaphor is not nostalgic preservation but forensic reanimation: fragments of obsolete or neglected urban tissue are reconfigured into symbolic–functional organs. Works such as Purple Legs or Taxi 1 exemplify this practice, staging the city as a semiotic assemblage whose scars become sites of renewed agency. This fusion of architectural pragmatics and poetic materialism produces a form of urban critique that is neither purely oppositional nor utopian, but reparative in orientation.
Equally significant is the density of textual and serial production, which together constitute the discursive spine of the project. Essays (12%) and series (10%) perform more than an auxiliary explanatory role; they operate as generative matrices through which concepts are iteratively tested, mutated and re-inscribed. The lexical saturation of the corpus—estimated at 60,000 to 80,000 words—signals the emergence of a proprietary conceptual vocabulary: “relational topography”, “psycho-environmental matrices”, “metrics of restorativeness”. Such terminology is not ornamental. It functions as a semi-formal grammar for thinking the interdependence of bodies, territories and affects. The long-form serial logic of projects like Taxidermy, Kingdom or Spaceship provides temporal continuity, allowing ideas to sediment into structures of intelligibility. These sequences enact what might be termed a slow epistemology, privileging accretion over rupture. In this respect, Lloveras’s practice aligns with ecological time rather than the accelerationist temporality of digital culture. The essays themselves become performative acts: theoretical propositions that double as architectural sketches and pedagogical scripts, collapsing the boundary between critical writing and spatial production.
The underrepresented layers—Teaching, Collectives, Films and Exhibitions—are not marginal in conceptual terms but miscategorised in administrative ones. Pedagogical projects such as Rhizomatic Pedagogy or YouTube Breakfast operate as spatial scores, choreographing attention, dialogue and embodied learning. They belong less to didactic instruction than to what might be called cognitive urbanism. Similarly, collectives such as CAPA or Bordados Sisters function as relational infrastructures, redistributing authorship and embedding artistic agency within communal governance. Films, often positioned as minor supplements, operate as temporal essays, extending socioplastics into durational media. Even exhibitions, including ARCO and biennial interventions, resist the logic of display in favour of systemic spatial design.
Reclassified through this lens, the entire corpus reveals itself as a single expanded artwork: a living archive of practices oriented towards ecological humanities and civic repair. Lloveras’s work thus articulates a model of art as infrastructural ethics, proposing that aesthetic practice can—and must—operate as a restorative technology within the damaged metabolism of late-capitalist urbanity (Lloveras, 2026).
100 FIREWORKS
