(Un verano en Turquia, 2021/Summer in Turkey, 2021/FBC/Derechos Reservados/All Rights Reserved)
Un cuadro tiene que valerse por sus partes que lo componen, como una sinfonia, donde todas las notas encajan…
El pintor, o sea, el artista, tiene que reivindicarse con cada cuadro que pinta. Su historial no lo hace un artista, su trabajo si…
Si un cuadro no comunica una idea, si no le habla al observador, supongo que no tiene espíritu y sin espíritu no hay vida. Es un cuadro que no tendrá trascendencia…
+++
A painting acquires its unity from its component parts, like a symphony, wherein all the notes fit in with perfection…
The painter, or the artist, has to revendicate himself with every painting he makes. His history does not make him an artist, his work will…
If a painting does not communicate an idea, if it does not talk to the observer, I suppose it is because it lacks spirit and without spirit there is no life. It is a painting without transcendence…
(Francisco at his show in «The Gallery» of the University of Miami, 2004/All Rights Reserved)
I always thought that artists (painters and sculptors) only had to display their works and with that they said it all. However, as you can see, here we are talking away, theorising and explaining. Art History (as an academic course) has become too long and too coarse. It collects, like a rubbish bag, everything that they throw into it. Styles of art are mostly defined by critics, «professors,» and journalists supposedly specialised in writing about art. I will tell you what I think of each of those groups.
First the art critics. To this group I give very little value and very little time. I can do without them and I wipe my nose with their critiques. We all know how to judge and how to determine what we like or don’t like, so we do not need a parrot to tell us what is good or not or to guide us. Second, the supposed teachers or professors. Well, this group is seemingly very important because they are to teach art students and guide them towards becoming artists. But they lose all their value when, in place of teaching the fundamentals, they serve as advocates for their own favourite style or artists. This creates students that really do not know much about making art, losing sight of the fundamentals of painting, sculpture, lithography or ceramics.
The art journalists, or those who write about art. Being those that tell us about openings, dates, times, the artist or artists involved. They are good for that, to help us fill in dates in our calendars to go see an exhibition, or not. But they go further, they promote those they like, or those that seem to be in the present «vanguard» and ignore the rest like the plague. Most of these «journalists» are frustrated or failed artists themselves. They probably failed because they did not work hard enough or dedicate enough time. Art requires hard work, and talent is only developed through sweat, effort and time. One is not born with talent, one develops it if one is interested in what they are doing. So I really do not have many good things to say about those who only write about those in the current mix (or those who pay them). Great journalism I’d say!
(Francisco Bravo Cabrera y sus perros en Grecia/Derechos Reservados – Francisco Bravo Cabrera and his dogs in Greece/All Rights Reserved)
Siempre he pensado que a los artistas (pintores y escultores) les bastaba con mostrar sus obras y que con eso lo decían todo. Pero resulta que como veis, aquí estamos hablando y hablando, teorizando y explicando. La historia del arte se ha hecho larga, extensa y hasta un poco burda. Recoge, como un saco, todo lo que le metan dentro. Los estilos los han definido los críticos, los «profesores» y aquellos periodistas que se dedican a escribir sobre el arte. Os diré lo que pienso de cada uno de estos colectivos.
Primero los críticos del arte. A ese grupo no le doy validez ni tampoco mucho tiempo. Me los paso por el forro de las narices y ya. Todos sabemos juzgar y valorar y determinar que nos gusta y que no, así que no nos hace falta un papagayo que nos guíe. Segundo los supuestos maestros o profesores, usualmente de las facultades de Bellas Artes. Este grupo suele ser muy importante para el crecimiento y el desarrollo del artista, pero pierde todo su valor cuando, en lugar de enseñar, se dedican a hacerle propaganda a su «estilo» favorito. Esto hace que los estudiantes pierdan la noción de lo que es el arte y no aprendan las bases y los fundamentos de la pintura, escultura, cerámica, litografía et cetera.
Los «periodistas» que escriben sobre el arte, o sea, los que nos explican las exposiciones, nos informan de las fechas y nos traen a la palestra publica nuevos artistas, o viejos artistas, o a cualquiera que a ellos les de la gana promover y promocionar, sirven solo para darnos las fechas y para poco mas. La mayoría de este colectivo lo conforman artistas frustrados o fracasados. Fracasan porque no curran el arte como Dios manda, pues el arte hay que trabajarla duro y el talento se desarrolla con la faena, constante y cantante. No se nace con talento, se desarrolla. Así que estos periodistas tampoco me hacen mucha falta. No tienen objetividad y escriben solo de los que están presentemente en el ajo (o a los que le pagan) y a los demás los ignoran. Menudos periodistas!
(«Sirenas»/»Sirens»/de/by FranciscoBravoCabrera/Derechos Reservados/All Rights Reserved)Original art by FranciscoBravoCabrera/Derechos Reservados/All Rights Reserved)
(Original Digital Art by Francisco Bravo Cabrera/All Rights Reserved)
In police circles, in criminal law and in society the term has always been DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and it has always been defined as violence perpetrated by someone known to the victim, regardless of his/her relationship to the victim. Brother on brother, Mother on children, spouse on spouse, even friends and neighbours would fall into the definition of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Domestic violence is what the name describes. I spent thirty years dealing with this during my time in the Miami-Dade Police Department.
But now these anti-male, demasculinisers of the new and modern feminist (which in no way has anything to do with real feminism) have come up with a real discriminating, man-hating term called «gender violence.» With this they imply that «something» in the male gender makes them violent towards women! Incredible! And what is worse, in some countries, especially in the European Union, they have actually made laws citing gender violence!
The reality is that all humans (male and female, and as far as I know there are only two genders) are prone to violence. That is why now in so many countries men and women go to war as combatant soldiers. So there is no validity, at least not in Biology, to this idea that the male gender is prone to violence towards the female gender. Many more mothers murder their children than do fathers.
So get over it! Enough with this stupid idea of political correctness! Things should be correct and peace should reign supreme among men (and men means women too) and violence should end, now!
