Your first steps in the plastic arts, isn't it?

Yes, it is true. I started as a painter in the art world. While I was in college, I started making art critiques in a magazine, at the proposal of a university professor. But I soon realized that critical knowledge and theories blocked my creativity. I believed that everything I did was done beforehand, and I was in a vicious circle, without moving forward or backward. I thought the way to escape would be to do something new.

Start with zero?

Yes, and without stepping into a school. I met artists of the time living in New York: Richard Serra, Sol LeWitt, Joan Jonas... All of them were experimenting with film and other artistic manifestations. So I decided that it could be appropriate to relive my creativity, to start working with something I didn't know, film. I say many times that if I had gone to the film academy, I would not have done Born in flames (created in Garreta).

Create your movies in a very free way.

Yes, as I have already told you, the art proclaimed by art critic Clement Greenberg had very rigid rules for me. I was looking to work with my heart and intuition on issues that were left on the sidelines and in collaboration. At that time, in downtown Manhattan, all the artists were standing together and everything was done in common. We had a lot of free time, and our creativity was developing in those conditions.

In this context, did the second wave of feminism influence art?

In my case, yes. Two things influenced: the art of women was not as valued as the art of men. Men were masters, women artists were mainly dedicated to performance and body, and were considered second-rate. Similarly, the second wave pushed me to ask questions about my sexuality. That's why I opted for a film that blended visual and verbal elements.

Why are you interested in the fiction of those outside?

Although I consider myself bisexual, I have always known that black and lesbian women were more exposed than I was. And I wanted to work with them. It is the fiction of a group of armed women opposed to the heteropatriarchal film Born in flames (1983). I wanted to work with the idea of outsider and exclusion, because the feminism of that time rejected lesbianism, and even more so that of black women in the lower classes. Also, in the film the topic of transsexuality appears, but we still didn't have a term to call it that.

Has anyone denounced you for the apology of violence in relation to this film?

Well, in this film, I tried to portray various forms of resistance, distribution of afixes, discussion groups, radio programs ... There are also characters who use weapons, but never against people. In my opinion, the question that triggers the movie is: At what point is people being driven to choose violence? These women only take the weapons, without using them, which already transforms the symbolic order of violence.

The class perspective has also been important to you.

I noticed a big gap in the group of artists that I mentioned to you. We were all descendants of middle or high classes and, at the same time, white. I wanted to know and expose the concerns of those who were not like me. I wanted to be with the most disgusted women that could be found in society.

In Regrouping (1976), you spoke about the union of women. It's amazing the present...

Of course, because this film is about a universal theme: How do you belong to a group? This is a very complex issue, and those difficulties appear again and again in the film, because it is a film that is continually being called into question. After all, I ask questions in my films, rather than draw conclusions. And so the main concern was, did we really become part of a group? In fact, we make great efforts for women to feel the unity among us, but then we always have the feeling that we are alone.