‘Should we leave a stuffed animal hanging from a wire for twenty years in order to benefit future generations? Or… should we take a decision based on current circumstances? Is the actual situation of the Arts a product of past ingenuities and “freedoms” knowing that eliminations have been present since the beginning of times? Or… should we avoid looking at our contemporary world at the same time that we deny responsibilities in favor of future imaginary circumstances? Because the fact is that if we travel to any of the four continents and we say that we are contemporary artists, chances are that either the people will laugh at us, or they will think that we are crazy… and that didn’t happen in history until fairly recently…

Since the beginning of time, every man has had to deal with those two choices. When is it appropriate to stay? When is it suitable to leave? At what point is it adequate to say enough is enough? These and other similar questions arise from the same controversial dilemma, shaping a great deal of our lives. Curiously, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of us leave most of the critical decisions to a third party, after all, the world around our bodies also influences our minds. Otherwise, how could we understand the inside without the outside? How could we make a decision without accepting that, even for a split second, most of what we do and what we say, is subjected to an exterior effect?


In the mind of a physicist the definition of force is recognized as an influence that causes motion on a body. The word “motion” has a clear time and space essence; but the word “influence” appears problematic, if we consider ourselves as merely individuals forming part of a society. In other words, it is commonly understood that a society is the sum of conditions and activities of individuals that together function as an independent entity; but the effect those individuals have between themselves provides a core of characters that do not necessarily reflect independence or freedom. Yet the outcome differentiates one society from another, like multiple families made-up of children from different partners.

The effect somebody exerts over another individual carries the weight of our civilization. That influence reflects an infinite combination of forces between ourselves, and most of those are directed to achieve the survival of each individual person, developing distinctive single trends on our way which help us to interact with each other. The word “motion” implies displacement. It suggests attraction or rejection from point A to point B, giving to our lives the necessary time and space to try to comprehend who we are. Without movement it would be impossible to distinguish one individual from the other, and that can drive us mad. What we are able to do, it is who we are. We know that since we are born, but often our connection with the world limits our desire to achieve our goals. In a mass society, like the one most of us live in, the interaction of people is exponentially exacerbated by the quantity of numbers. Generally, in our world, a person is able to achieve something if the rest of the community allows it. We prize individuality, but at the same time we are obligated to walk restrictive paths.

Man has had to deal with restrictions and limits, with motions and desires, since the first communities were developed millions of years ago. What an individual wants must be in accordance with the principles of the environment in which he lives; otherwise, the environment could turn against him. This problem has being pursuing Man for ages, and connects with the dilemma indicated previously. Should a person change the circumstances where he lives to achieve his goals? Or, is it better to leave, to change our surroundings for a more suitable environment?

(To be continued)’