I ask Diego said this was Communist, or are depriving Yankee system and traffickers of art of your mask? the only thing certain for me is that my, as I said before these works let me absolutely indifferent, I do not see there nothing, but absolutely nothing, not to be material waste that is job in making such batidillo. In his article on the so-called generation of the rupture, Luis Carlos Emerich, talks, on the neutral art. Looking for a little of Luz I am not, right, left, or Center, I am only a poor painter confused looking for some light, to continue doing my little monkeys a little better and put them in the history of the art, i.e., in this historical process, which I played live, so is that I, I ask again does that is Jackson Pollock artist more expensive? or are we going to ask the question in another way; Jackson Pollck is the most expensive is the better? I say damn! which is it? I earlier already wrote something about these things, but now that I stumbled upon these writings by Diego Rivera, which is indeed still the painter more popular in Mexico, was reborn in my question; does that Pollock is the? most expensive artist? Diego response is good, at least to me, so seems at this time. Returning to the issue in particular are going to suppose that only we have a dog-eared marketing stunt to draw attention to an artist to inflate and give a prestige that has no, because so are the the called Dealers, they often invent this kind of thing, I already tube about bitter experiences with these gentlemen. As I said before, I’m not right or left, and I don’t have anything against the United States, if the so-called painter more expensive in the world outside Chinese, my question would remain the same, for that is the most expensive? would like to make that very clear. $I step, I don’t play the game of the art, thank you! * or relevant links: Number 5, Jackson Pollock Alberto Thirion original Autor and source of the article..

There is never a positive news by opening a newscast, usually always choose any bloody question, I know that you we all know that blood sells much, but also numbed to the receiver of information, blood always appears when it comes to lunch or dinner, with what if one is sensitive just by changing channels. At the end to the blood you’ll getting used as to hear about descuartizamientos, murders and other events that populate much of the television news. Seems that when wild and violent is the fact and more has most impact chroniclers, are recreated which makes that in the end people saturate it quickly. The news have lost a little north of a time now only emphasizing the negative part of society. It is said that positive does not sell anything, thing that is not true but is more impressive as morbid and unpleasant.

A newscast with some science and less blood I am convinced that it would be a novelty and even very commented. Asking for that is like thinking that if you speak of books on television people are going to devote to sestear, you need not be so but it is a very widespread idea. The bad news seem to guarantee a great amount of hearing the brainy experts say because people are morbid by nature. To those who do not like blood in the news, usually pay attention to the section of football (formerly known as sports). The funny thing is that always opens with something unpleasant perhaps to start preparing the viewer at a bad time.

This change perhaps someday but for now we have blood for a while. The morbid moves our emotions before the TV, because someone told me once with dead news impacts more than without them. Sincerely some time ago to change television by radio to inform me and I don’t regret the change, the Word creates less anxiety than the image. I guess that a century of these change our habits when it comes to inform us and not tragaremos us all what we want to sell included blood. Meanwhile all repeat the same news thousand times having thousands of resources to give rise to more variety. The blood will continue monopolizing the TV and some will continue away from the same.