When one tries to deepen about the sense and the coherence of terminology used in the conceptual world of contemporary art, gives you the feeling that your ignorance is extreme, since you are unable to understand almost nothing of what is being read. In the majority of the criticisms about news from newspapers or magazines, a series of biensonantes words, interlaced with singular ingenuity, attempt to explain the intentions and the plastic quality of an artist who probably nor the artist himself can understand. Let’s take at random one of those brief writings: is an artist who strives to develop a plastic idea with remarkable consistency, security in their work and loyalty to that thought that translates into very personal forms, such as the planoetrias, defined as volumes that evolve in a single plane. His work is a work of self-evident subtlety, with different linear and structural suggestions capable of diversification in the matter, in the form and spatial projection, as well as suggestive values of rhythmic musicality plastic in the creative process read this I have to admit that I have understood the words but not the content, and I know that this ignorance is neither politically correct nor desirable to position myself in a privileged place of the artistic elite. Political correctness is to give the impression to others that this intelectualoide language is familiar and that there is no doubt about their understanding. Some may rebut that all these words acquire a sense when the work is seen, but I can assure you that taking forward the work, nor the very same Nietzsche or Kafka could decrypt such gibberish. On the other hand, it is curious that all these criticisms, it always extols and it massages to the author of the work, never criticized him negatively as was long ago in the age of Impressionism and the early 20th century.