The greatest confusion of our times is determined by an abrogation of responsibility. More specifically, this confusion is generated when the repeal, considered a legal and even essential exercise, is followed by any power. The more sophisticated the power, the greater the elusiveness of its repeal. Too many politicians, but also psychologists, journalists and communicators cultivate it.

In the theory of modern Western art that means applying one of the most awkard ways of perceiving action and its artistic values. The result of a vulgar and malignant interpretation of the weak principles of capitalism, the attribution of value to any work of art lies in the opportunity to possess it, close it in a vault, exclude from the natural flow of exposure, reducing it to a financial price.

Our favorites artists, whose biography is only marginally a subject of our observation, know that the work of art is not the object produced and more or less negotiable. It is rather the transaction that takes place, in a moment more or less restricted in time, between this object and compliance (or listener). Whether it’s Van Gogh, Basquiat or any other object, is this relation which has value and the cultural responsibility regarding the value is shared in this way.

Among processors, actor and user, a tacit mutual respect is realized as in a business enterprise, from which values of every sort emerge. Even in Kitsch as described by Gillo Dorfles, even in the most sophisticated and informal action at the Biennale of art, nothing happens if the relationship is lacking, and nothing remains except empty items destined to auction houses. In the music scene and audience relationship the former is structured to facilitate it, to manipulate it, to define a special one, or to change every rule.