The visual contradiction is consistent with the path of art that assumes a symbolic dimension. I am reminded of Umberto Eco’s book The Open Work and of Roland Barthes’s assertion that the meaning of art is plural. Can criticism enter into this? It is welcome, embracing contradiction through the friction between the language of the critic and that which is, or is not, present in the artist. There may be a dialogue with consequences—or none at all—in the book of absurdities: the artist did not understand the critic, or the critic did not understand the artist.

Regarding the present exhibition, I am reminded of what I once read: that art without symbols is art without content. It could not, therefore, be without content, expressed through drawings and paintings depicting symbolic situations, without turning away from Aesthetics. Aesthetics is the garment that attracts the gaze. Some may take time to look, while others may fail to see because they did not come close enough to the works and left with ill intent. In truth, they did not see what warranted lingering and, naturally, questions—questions that do not always find answers, as the artist, or whoever might provide them, is absent.

Emerenciano