Possunt quia posse videntur I
Possunt quia posse videntur I
Possunt quia posse videntur I
Possunt quia posse videntur I

Possunt quia posse videntur I

It is the way the modern nation-state conducts itself which leads to recent social repression, as well as to a brutal process related to distinction and acceptance against exclusion and rejection. A political system emerges capable of defining its limits and those who take part in it, establishing the criterion for those who cannot. Building a collective imagery capable of conglomerating feelings of attachment to a nation is critical in this process, and that is where the various identity symbols appear, especially that of the flag.

It does not matter much to what country or what nation symbols aspire to represent. What is really important is that they do not overflow the boundaries of the existing framework of power, but instead replicate the same model with different limits. The proposal for Possunt quia posse videntur I consists of using the undisputed symbol of national differentiation which is the flag, and trying to destroy the representative logic that comes with it by denying its function. There is a double game nature to the proposal in that it begins by with the firm gesture of Louise Michel, leader of the Paris Commune, during a demonstration organized by the union of carpenters of Paris where she would improvise a black flag with a skirt tied to a broomstick, renouncing any pattern, color code, or geometric identification. Furthermore, it takes on the paradox of the flag that denies its own condition, oversized on its longest side. The meaning of this oversize, which lengthens the two pieces horizontally linked to the origin of sovereign power: has exactly the dimensions of a standard tombstone.

In each of the two flags, the definition given by the Collins English Dictionary to the terms state and nation has been added, providing a normative, academic, and aseptic definition, capable of articulating the imaginary (or political fictions) we know today. If a dictionary is able to define what something is, it also denies the possibility of what it cannot be.