PICTURE

YOU CAN TAKE A PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE, YOU CAN BE IN A PICTURE. Fictional or real document. Really matters to make such dissection of gender? A photography never is what it seems to be, it isn't the substitution of the thing neither an approximation. Not even a similar. The illusion that notes each time that emerges other picture is that it is a fragment, an ethereal vision. It is necessary to reduce the image to a given moment, to an instant, an angle, perspective, notion, aprioristic knowledge of the photographed object. A quotidian document is more truthful, believable, faithful, worthy that other? That documents really tell what we are what we do and how we are? Does not reveal another kind of questions? The difference is necessary to prevent what kind of mirror reaction? To prepare for what kind of image? For knowing what are we seeing. We don't want to be cheated, that what it is displayed seems to be the real thing, we need to trust ion who's moving the strings of the scene. We need certificates, specialists that explain, someone who can verify and tell us what will be our experience, we need a referee of the reason that justifies and qualify our own deductions, that give us the correct answer of what we see. We are habituated to obtain background information, stories, referent catalogs, diligent judgments to get authenticated of what we see. That contrasts, that lights of what we see need to be demonstrated, impeccable, patented. We need to see the quality seal, and that there isn't overshot of standard production of what it is an art piece. For god's sake, it is preferable to see the serious and boring that are the pieces of art than face up to reality then. Isn't it all that nomination only serving as a prevention for the innocent public, or naïve that in their ignorance prefer to define before to discover, discern. Instead prefer to stipulate, record, conceptualize before bet let provoke by curiosity, be let it go on the road of an intuitive intellect. I'm interested that people think on a use that they give to the things. That use is the privilege of their thoughts, of the order they maintain, of the hierarchies they assigned. The most used is the value par excellence and the how to use it the pattern to act in every situation. Of herein outside the gregarious animal that establishes their grid of knowledge isn't more than a narrow machine that relates instruments that recognize by a satisfaction that the object is given. The user makes the thing. From there can't be possible to detach other ways of being, of seeing. So, is how I conceive this project of images. Far away from the normal usage that should be. A comedy quotidian. Whether or not what message it should be given or what? The thoughts aren't joined to the being, that recognized identities aren't more than a puzzle for a madness hospital in which fools play to the post office. Are they thinking it could happen in an absolute simultaneous moment? Full of restrictions? This is ok, this is not ok… and a long strong etcetera.