I would not compare Celfocus to a classic artwork but more to a Waldo book. Only because I see a lot of new faces every day, which I can’t recognize and sometimes I confuse my colleagues with someone else.

I agree a so called popular ‘bad taste’ exists, but at the same time I believe it is a very subjective concept and too personal to put inside a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ box. That said, having ‘bad taste’ is only an idea, our own judgement of anything that doesn’t visually belong in our own personal standards of beauty and that is cheap, too easy and that doesn’t hold any value. And people who appreciate any object we consider distasteful, have a poor capacity of judgement, lack of education - even common sense.

But, to be fair, do I hold the truth if I say something is undoubtfully tasteful?

Ok, I don’t like Maria Leal as an artist. She is a good example of what I personally consider a product of popular bad taste, low value - but I also took time to look into her and her music, out of curiosity. Why?

I guess it has more to do with the concept of what she represents than the product she sells, the actual music. So, sometimes the extreme polarity becomes an object of entertainment for a different reason… we have a morbid and unexplained interest in things we consider to be of extreme ‘bad taste’. And if it is entertaining for some and it’s not really hurting anyone (you don’t have to hurt your ears if you don’t want to), I wonder… well, why change it?

In conclusion, my opinion is that taste can’t really be re-educated – the concept is too volatile to create rules around it and we don’t even have the right to change anyone’s taste to our own standards. Because there is no good and bad or truth and false – only diversity. Variety is important and we need it, as we need salt and sweet, sour and acid.

Legitimate a copy as a of work of art? Better in what sense? As an artistic concept or as a copy of reality?

I believe that labeling a work of art based specifically on its visual appeal at this day and age is not possible. We are living an epoch of and universal growth in every aspect, art included. For this, art has come a long way and has suffered changes in its purpose. We should look at a work of art contextualizing its when and its why. Let me explain: a painting made by Leonardo DaVinci is incomparable as an artistic piece of art, with a painting by Picasso, for example. The historical moment where each was created and the need for its creation differs immensely. Leonardo DaVinci existed at a moment where painting existed to represent pictures: when a painter was an artisan that created images to spread a message to the population (representing historical or biblical moments). Art served a need. The latter, Picasso, lived in an era when art was starting to separate itself from its sole purpose of being a window to the outside, and started gaining its own identity as an object. Ceci n'est pas une pipe is a great joke on this but also very relevant to understand the idea, especially considering the moment it appeared. As it is with Marcel Duchamp’s Urinol: the purpose of this piece was completely placed in its objectivity - the artist took an old urinol (could be anything else really) and stated that is was art. The author stated that the importance of the creation was the ‘idea’ behind it, its conceptual side.

So, art has evolved to a state where there is an emotional value attached to each artwork that overcomes its sole visual nature and evaluating a piece in these terms is simplifying it too much.

I believe each artist, as with each individual must be aware of his own ethical boundaries. I don’t think it is fair to starve a dog to death or be the cause of any kind of suffering to another sensitive creature for ‘art’s sake’ or for your own personal artistical expression. Sometimes one feels a certain impunity when referring to the individual artistical expression as a right we express as human beings and that goes above anything else - but I simply do not agree with this. As an active member of society and a conscious being, I must be aware of my own morality and have respect for others, whether I call myself an artist or not.

Comparing our work, in what way? Our freedom?

As a consultant we have many constraints since we are providing a service to a client and so we need to consider what they want and what the business demands. As a freelancer I have some more freedom, especially if I am building my own portfolio – I am basically free to explore new ideas with almost no constraints. But still I do have my ethical boundaries (only at a higher level) that I do not overlook and take praise from.

Indeed, there is no linearity in art… I guess it is just as everything else in life, we just need to know how to listen and filter what people tell you - for good or for bad. And be aware of your own beliefs and likings. Mainly because in this trade there is no polarity, no right or wrong I can lean onto. Personally, I try to listen and understand the other side first and put myself in their shoes - understand where they come from, their view on things so as to give me their opinion as it is and try to work with that.

I guess the boundaries can be diffuse in a certain way: art will always be influenced by technology and the other way around, since we are surrounded by it all. Some artists use technology as their medium while others use it to exhibit their work.

On the other hand, we have examples of more mainstream shows (like concerts, a play or a musical) that use art and mix it with technology to create amazing experiences for the audiences. I like to see how things influence each other and not only how technology opens a wide range of possibilities for art but also how artistic vision can be an open road for creating technology.

Literature is a good example and it can be viewed as the visionary’s medium: the author is one step ahead as he is idealizing a convincing future.

Even movies or tv shows can give very creative people the space to narrate the future, take the Black Mirror series for example: it is a great example of a how a technology driven narrative combines with art to give us a credible image of what the future may look like (whilst being a very engaging show at the same time).