Art has more to do with doubt than with certainty. Therefore, it is often confronted with science, whose objective is to obtain irrefutable evidence. Science approaches art when the scientist does not take the facts for granted and speculates with his imagination. Perhaps different areas of the brain work, but the goal is the same: to express ideas while maintaining nonconformity, in the search for a new paradigm.

That disagreement, that permanent dissatisfaction, is at the heart of the artistic fact. Although technically perfect, any artistic manifestation that does not leave a restlessness or an emotion raised in its form or content, can be branded as encyclopedic: illustrative, but not intriguing.

The call of art, multiple dynamic, should awaken the imagination of the artist to create something inciting and provocative, spurring the curiosity of the viewer to try to decipher the message, if any, or to provoke the association of ideas based on the content of the work.

Sometimes I’m tempted to substitute the word ‘art’ for ‘photography’. At the last moment I doubt, and I leave photography separate from all categories, a hybrid of science, art and technique in which it is not easy to quantify the role of each one. To orient ourselves, perhaps we should ask ourselves about the initial intention at the time of creating.

I may retract these words in the future: nonconformity never dies, not even in my own thoughts.