Honestly, at first I thought it was a mere boutade. An artistic performance, which explicitly sought to make fun of all those who continue to contemplate the Urinary of Duchamp as a fundamental work of art in the history of contemporary art, unfortunately reminded excessively that kind of reactionary outbursts - style Avelina Lesper - that every so often They are repeated throughout the history of art.

The controversy provoked and the surprising impact of its performance, show me however that it is an important work of contemporary art. And I have reached that conviction, because I have seen that two border issues are touched upon, which, it seems, are still mobilizing many passions. The first one is related to the limits of art. I have already written it the other day and I will not repeat it, because it seems unbelievable that the Duchamp Urinal is still a matter of dispute, one hundred years after being exposed for the first time. Although this clearly demonstrates that it remains a valid and relevant work, precisely because it calls into question the limits of art. Undoubtedly, the performance or the installation or whatever you want to call it, Boyer Tresaco, in the Theredoom gallery in Madrid, has shown a more tough intervention than it seemed in principle. And this in second place because it does not only touch the question of the limits of art (what is art and what is not art?), But also the question of the limits of the human, in its relationship with the animal. And this has been, from what I have seen, the most controversial and debated issue. This does not surprise me much, as it seems that the humanism / animalism dispute is one of the core themes of contemporary culture. In 2013, we published a collective reflection on this problem in the Arena publishing house, precisely with this title, which luckily continues to be found in bookstores. In it we were trying to reflect on how the apparent decline of humanism coincides surprisingly with the birth of animalism.

MIGUEL CERECEDA