Quaderns d'Arquitectura i Urbanisme vol:261 issue:2011/4 pages:46-48
(Question:) What’s a metaphoric void?
(Answer:) Metaphoric in the sense that their interest or value wasn’t in their possible use...
(Question:) You mean you were interested in these spaces on some non-functional level.
(Answer:) Or on a functional level that was so absurd as to ridicule the idea of function. For example, the places where you stop to tie your shoe-laces, places that are just interruptions in your own daily movements. These places are also perceptually significant because they make a reference to movement space. (...) When I bought those properties (...) the description of them that always excited me the most was “inaccessible” (...) What I basically wanted to do was to designate spaces that wouldn’t be seen and certainly not occupied. Buying them was my own take on the strangeness of existing property demarcation lines. Property is so all-pervasive. Everyone’s notion of ownership is determined by the use factor (...)
(G. Matta-Clark, “Splitting the Humphrey Street Building”, interview by Liza Bear, May, 1974, published in Catalogue of Gordon Matta-Clark Exhibition, Museo Nacional, Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, Madrid, 2006, p165-180 (quote p. 166) First published in Avalanche, December 1974, p.34-37)