The void of art

For many years now, I’ve seen how a lot of movies substitute content with effects and production. The screenplay feels like a dialogue between foolishness and emptiness, yet filled with strong and potent action sequences. The same seems to happen continuously with art. A substantial number of visual “artists” and the art Caesars are mesmerized by tech production—which certainly is not science—and so is the public, along with what they have to say about it.

Before I continue, I want to leave something crystal clear: this is not a rejection of technology. Half of my work crosses that threshold. The question is not what we use, but what leads.

When technology stops being a medium and becomes the conceptual axis, art risks turning into its appendix—or worse, dissolving into a systematized occurrence.

Everydays: the First 5000 Days, "artist" mike winkelmann.

Unfortunately, more and more I witness the bling-bling that, like a snake charmer, blinds with its shine—pieces that are more technological fireworks, subverting the core of artistic content with circus-like production, to say the least.

I insist, I’m not against tech, and even less against science holding the hand of its brother, art. But I do question the opportunism that deceives even the most knowledgeable art curators, gallerists, dealers, journalists, media—and all those I’m forgetting at the moment I’m writing this.

I only intend to put the spotlight on those who deceive and alienate, as an extension of the overwhelming noise we all live in.

Art doesn’t disappear when technology advances. It disappears when it stops leading.

The void of art