Science is the great motor of humanity and its progress has been unquestionable. In the 20th century, for ex- ample, it was capable of deciphering and measuring the invisible; from observing the most microscopic phe- nomena to understanding the remote corners of outer space. Transferring knowledge in order to abound in new discoveries or reveal hidden aspects of reality is a daily exercise among scientists. Today, we know much more about the universe than we did just a few years ago. Science, with its methodology, and art, with its cre- ative gaze, have succeeded in helping us understand things more clearly. They have shown us the world as dual points of view that unveil, that reveal through two different lenses. Great artists are capable of unmasking objects—in the broadest sense. That is why I believe that art shows us what is pertinent and eliminates the irrelevance of objects, that which does not belong there.
Art purifies objects and allows a much cleaner gaze; it allows us see with- out prejudice, and that is why it makes us more free. Societies that live and produce art are humanized and have a clearer, more vital frame of reference. I am one of those who believe that art has also evolved. In its trajectory throughout history, it has gone from the complexities of Bosch to a cer- tain purification and simplicity that are also endearing. Such is the case of artists like Dan Flavin, Josef Albers, and Mark Rothko, for example, where there has been a synthesis, a capacity to communicate and inspire using far fewer resources.
Beyond a doubt, we bear witness today to an evolution in the use of lan- guage, or even in the management of what inspires us. It is likely that this reduction of elements in the art world has to do with the fact that our societies are saturated with information from too many sources, re- sponding to the excess of messages we find ourselves facing each day. Naturally, I believe art has succeeded in communicating the essentials to us with much less.