Sex, in its deepest essence, is color. It’s emotion made visible, the pulse of desire translated into light and tone. Every experience of intimacy, whether fierce or tender, has its hue, its shade, its afterglow. From the fiery blush of passion to the quiet darkness of secrecy, sex paints the human condition in a palette that is at once universal and deeply personal.
But what color, truly, is sex?
This question sits at the intersection of color psychology and one of the most powerful human experiences. While no single hue can claim absolute ownership of desire, cultures across time and geography have intuitively linked certain colors to the erotic, the romantic, and the forbidden.

Red: The Classic Flame
If there is one color that instantly evokes sex, it is red. The world seems to agree on this instinctively. Red is the color of the heart, of flushed cheeks and rising heat. It is passion incarnate, bold, impulsive, unapologetic. It’s no coincidence that red lipstick, red lingerie, and red light all whisper the same word: want.
Psychologically, red has a direct physiological effect. It increases heart rate and respiration, quickening the pulse just as desire does. It demands attention and invites touch. Yet red also carries a warning. It is the color of danger, of the stop sign, of blood. In that tension lies its power, the thrill of attraction balanced against the risk of surrender. Sex, after all, is not just about pleasure. It’s about vulnerability, risk, and the dangerous beauty of losing control.

Pink: The Soft Pulse
If red is the fire, pink is the afterglow. It softens the edges of desire, replacing the wildness of lust with affection and tenderness. Pink belongs to the realm of playfulness, the flirtatious smile, the first kiss, the warmth of connection. In its deeper shades, like fuchsia or magenta, pink turns from sweet to intoxicating, carrying within it both innocence and seduction.
Pink is also culturally tied to femininity, but in the context of sexuality, it transcends gender. It speaks to the emotional intimacy that makes passion sustainable, the kind of touch that lingers not on the body, but in the memory. Where red consumes, pink caresses.

Black: The Hidden Realm
Every color of sex needs its shadow, and that shadow is black. Black is the color of mystery, power, and the unknown. It is the silk blindfold, the closed door, the whispered secret. In fashion and in fantasy, black suggests control, not just over the body, but over the experience itself. It’s the color of sophistication and restraint, paradoxically amplifying desire by concealing it.
There’s also a psychological depth to black. It invites introspection and surrender. In the darkness, the senses heighten. Sight fades, touch dominates. The body becomes a landscape of sensation. Black reminds us that what is hidden often holds more allure than what is revealed. It is the color of erotic imagination, the place where fantasy and fear intertwine.

Purple: The Ecstasy of Depth
Between the heat of red and the cool mystery of blue lies purple, a hue historically linked to luxury, opulence, and transcendence. In the language of desire, purple speaks of intoxication. It’s not the rush of red, but the slow, enveloping wave of pleasure that borders on spiritual. Deep violet, especially, evokes a kind of ecstatic surrender, the merging of body and soul.
Purple’s royal associations give it an air of indulgence. It is the velvet of passion, the scent of incense, the candlelit chamber where time seems to dissolve. There’s something holy and forbidden about purple, as if it belongs to both heaven and sin. It’s the color of sex when it transforms from physical act to mystical experience.

Gold: The Glow of Completion
Every fire needs a dawn. After the intensity of red, the mystery of black, and the intoxication of purple, comes the soft radiance of gold. Gold is warmth, satisfaction, and the gentle hum that follows release. It’s the color of skin illuminated by sunlight, of quiet joy and shared laughter. In this palette of passion, gold represents the reward, the glow of connection and the peace that follows the storm.
Gold also carries the symbolic weight of value. It is the treasure at the heart of the experience, not just physical pleasure, but emotional fulfillment, the sacred exchange between lovers. If red is the spark, black the night, purple the trance, then gold is the dawn that reminds us why we return to desire again and again.

The Alchemy of Passion
If we were to mix these colors, red, black, and gold, what would emerge is a deep crimson: the true alchemical hue of sex. This crimson embodies the full spectrum of human intimacy, the physical, the emotional, and the spiritual. It’s neither purely red nor purely dark; it is both fire and shadow, hunger and reverence.
In the language of design and color theory, a deep crimson can be described precisely:

• Magenta: 100%
• Yellow: 100%
• Cyan: 15%
• Black: 10%

This combination yields a rich, sultry red that leans slightly toward purple, enough to evoke sophistication and mystery, without losing the primal heat of passion. The addition of black deepens the tone, turning lust into something powerful and enduring. The touch of cyan cools the hue just enough to pull it away from anger or aggression, guiding it instead toward sensuality. In other words, crimson is not just a color, it’s a feeling calibrated in pigment. It is the heartbeat made visible.

The Personal Palette
Yet, no universal color can define something as subjective as desire. For some, sex might glow gold, a warm, luminous exchange filled with tenderness. For others, it might be silver, sleek, cerebral, and modern. There are those who see it in the electric pulse of blue, in the earthy greens of nature, or even in the pure white of spiritual unity. Sex, after all, is as diverse as the people who experience it.
The true color of sex lies not in the pigment, but in perception, in how it makes us feel, what memories it stirs, what parts of ourselves it reveals. It is a living spectrum, shifting with time, mood, and intimacy.

Beyond the Surface
When artists paint desire, they aren’t just illustrating the body, they’re exploring the emotional charge that color can hold. Caravaggio found it in chiaroscuro, the play of light and darkness that makes flesh luminous. Rothko found it in vibrating blocks of red and purple, where emotion seems to dissolve into atmosphere. In art, as in life, color becomes a language for what cannot be spoken.
Perhaps that’s the secret. Sex, like art, is not about replication but revelation. Both are acts of creation born from the tension between control and surrender, light and shadow. Both use color as a way to express what words cannot.

Epilogue: The Infinite Shade
So, what color is sex?
It is red when it begins, fierce, pulsing, alive.
It is black when it deepens, mysterious, consuming, whole.
It is purple when it transcends, ecstatic, sacred, eternal.
And it is gold when it ends, warm, tender, complete.
Sex is not a single color but a symphony of them, shifting and blending in an infinite spectrum. It is the art of being human, of feeling everything, all at once, and finding in that chaos a perfect, fleeting harmony.

There’s a quiet myth that lingers in the art world, that to run a gallery or a creative business, you need to be loud, endlessly social, and constantly in the spotlight. The archetype of the “charming gallerist,” champagne flute in hand, moving from conversation to conversation, seems to define success.
But what about those of us who thrive in solitude? Those who draw our energy not from the crowd, but from reflection, creation, and meaningful one-on-one connections? Can an introvert artist run an art gallery successfully?
The answer is not only yes……it’s absolutely yes.
In fact, introverts possess a quiet set of strengths that make them uniquely equipped to build galleries with depth, authenticity, and vision. The key is not to imitate extroverted models of success, but to shape a business that reflects who you are and how you work best.
 
The Power of Thoughtful Vision
Introverts are often deep thinkers. Before taking action, they tend to reflect, analyze, and understand the emotional or philosophical essence of what they’re doing. In the context of running a gallery, that means the introvert’s strength lies in curation, the ability to select, organize, and present art that resonates deeply rather than merely impresses.
While extroverts might excel at throwing a spectacular opening night, introverts excel at giving a show meaning. They create exhibitions that tell stories, provoke thought, and invite introspection, the kind of shows that linger in visitors’ minds long after they leave.
Many introvert gallerists find that their power lies in creating atmosphere rather than spectacle. They design spaces that feel like sanctuaries for art, where silence is allowed to speak and where viewers can engage in genuine contemplation. In a world obsessed with noise and instant gratification, such spaces offer a rare kind of magic, and people notice.
 
Deep Listening as a Superpower
One of the most underestimated skills in the art world is listening. Collectors, artists, and visitors all crave to be heard, to feel that their experiences, tastes, and emotions matter.
Introverts naturally excel at this. They don’t rush to fill silence with words; instead, they observe, listen, and understand. This attentiveness builds trust. It helps them spot emerging talent, sense what resonates emotionally with clients, and nurture relationships that endure.
In conversations with artists, an introverted gallery owner might uncover the subtle motivations behind a work, the hidden layers that others might miss. In discussions with collectors, they might intuitively grasp what a person is truly seeking, even if they can’t quite articulate it themselves.
Listening is the foundation of empathy, and empathy in business is gold.
 
Leading from the Background
Many introverts hesitate to run a gallery because they associate leadership with extroversion, the commanding presence, the constant self-promotion, the ceaseless networking.
But leadership doesn’t always mean standing in front of the crowd. Sometimes, it means leading from the background, creating a space where others can shine. Introverted gallery owners often act as guides rather than performers. They give artists the platform and the confidence to speak for themselves, curating contexts in which each voice feels seen and valued.
This approach creates loyalty and community. Artists sense the authenticity behind the quiet leader. Visitors feel a genuine atmosphere of respect and attention. Collectors sense that the gallery’s choices are guided by conviction, not trend-chasing.
In the long run, this type of leadership builds a more sustainable, meaningful brand.
 
The Balance Between Solitude and Visibility
Of course, running a gallery does involve public engagement, openings, press, collectors, social media. For an introvert, these can be exhausting. But they don’t have to be draining if approached strategically.
Introverts thrive when they prepare. Before an opening, for example, you can script key points you want to communicate, rehearse introductions, and set boundaries for your time. You can schedule quiet breaks before and after big events to recharge.
You can also use digital tools to your advantage, curating your public presence carefully through thoughtful writing, storytelling, and visual communication. Introverts often shine online because they express themselves best through words and images rather than small talk. A beautifully written blog, a sincere social media post, or a contemplative video tour of the gallery can reach people on a deeper level than endless networking ever could.
Visibility doesn’t require constant noise, it requires authenticity.
 
Building the Right Team
Another strength of successful introverts is knowing when to delegate. No one has to do everything alone. Many introverted gallery owners find it helpful to partner with someone more extroverted, a co-director or assistant who enjoys public relations, events, and external communication.
This kind of partnership can create balance. The introvert brings strategy, vision, and curation; the extrovert brings energy, outreach, and promotion. Together, they form a complete whole, a yin and yang of creativity and communication.
Even if you prefer to work solo, surrounding yourself with collaborators who complement your personality, from interns to photographers to PR managers, allows you to stay focused on what you do best: thinking, creating, and curating.
 
The Art of Sustainable GrowthIntroverts often excel at long-term thinking. They’re not interested in quick fame or fleeting trends; they prefer to build something enduring. That mindset is ideal for the art world, where reputation and relationships grow slowly, like vines around an old wall.
Because introverts reflect deeply before acting, they tend to avoid rash decisions. They spend time understanding their audience, their artists, and the cultural context of their exhibitions. They might not launch five shows a year, but the ones they do present are more cohesive, more sincere, and more aligned with their values.
This is the kind of growth that lasts, is organic, meaningful, and rooted in integrity.
 
Embracing Your Own Rhythm
Perhaps the most important advice for an introverted artist running a gallery is this: build your business around your rhythm, not against it.
If you need silence in the morning to think or paint, keep your mornings sacred. If large events drain you, host smaller, more intimate gatherings. If social media feels performative, use it as a journal, share process, reflection, and beauty rather than constant promotion.
The truth is that art itself is introverted by nature. It emerges from observation, introspection, and solitude. Running a gallery as an introvert simply means extending that same energy into how you curate, connect, and communicate.
 
In the End
Yes, an introvert can run a business successfully.
Introverts have deep focus, strategic thinking, listening skills, authentic empathy, and self-motivation, all essential traits for leadership and entrepreneurship. The challenges of public engagement can be managed through preparation, delegation, and setting healthy boundaries.
But perhaps the greatest advantage introverts bring to the art world is their depth. In a culture that often values speed and spectacle, introverts remind us that art, like life, is about connection, not noise.
Your quiet strength, your reflective nature, your way of seeing the world, these aren’t obstacles. They are the very foundation upon which meaningful art and lasting galleries are built.
So, if you’re an introverted artist dreaming of running your own gallery, remember: the world doesn’t need another loud voice. It needs your silent conviction, your inner world made visible, one exhibition, one conversation, one visitor at a time.
Because sometimes, the quietest rooms echo the loudest truths.

Once it was said that a human is a speaking animal.
And elsewhere, that a human is a religious being.
Two phrases, like mirrors facing each other, reflecting endlessly what it means to be what we already are — and yet, hardly understand.
For centuries, humanity has tried to define itself through contrasts: the animal and the divine, the rational and the instinctual, the mortal and the eternal. We draw lines between ourselves and other creatures, between ourselves and gods, hoping the contours will give us certainty. But the more we try to define “the human,” the more it slips away — like trying to draw the horizon with a fingertip.
Perhaps this difficulty is not a failure of thought but the very essence of being human: to exist as a question rather than an answer.
 
The Speaking Animal
To say that humans are “speaking animals” is to recognize that we are not merely flesh that moves, eats, and reproduces. We are flesh that says.
Through language, the world becomes doubled: there is the world as it is, and the world as we tell it. A stone is no longer just a stone; it becomes symbol, metaphor, memory. Through speech, the animal begins to dream.
Language is not just communication. It is creation. The first myth, the first poem, the first cry of love or fear — all of them shape the invisible architecture of human existence. The universe we inhabit is not only made of matter but of words.
And yet, in speaking, we are also separated from the immediacy of life. The animal acts; the human narrates. We live always at a small distance from what we are doing, as if watching ourselves from the outside. That distance gives birth to consciousness, to self-awareness — and also to doubt.
Every sentence contains a wound: a fracture between what is and what could be. We speak because something is missing. We invent language to bridge the gap between our solitude and the world. But that very bridge reminds us of the separation.
The “speaking animal” is therefore a creature condemned to mediation — never fully at one with the world, yet never fully apart from it.

The Religious Being
If the first definition roots us in logos — reason, language, reflection — the second, calling us “a religious being,” roots us in longing.
Religion, before temples and dogmas, is the trembling awareness that there is something beyond the visible — a sense of mystery that neither logic nor language can exhaust. It is the ache of the finite reaching for the infinite.
To be “religious,” in this sense, does not necessarily mean to believe in a god, but to feel that life itself surpasses understanding, that there is a sacred dimension woven into the ordinary. Even the atheist who feels awe before a mountain, or silence before a dying friend, shares in that same human gesture: the bow of wonder.
We are religious beings because we cannot bear the flatness of existence. We seek meaning, even when the universe offers none. We invent gods, stories, symbols, not only to explain the world but to make it lovable.
Where the animal accepts the world as it is, the human asks why.
And from that question, civilization is born.
 
Between Beast and Angel
Both definitions — the speaking animal and the religious being — reveal that we are creatures in-between.
We are animals, yes, made of hunger, instinct, and death. But we are also something more: a consciousness that looks at its own mortality and asks what it means.
Every human life unfolds between two silences: the one before birth and the one after death. Speech fills the gap between them. Religion — or the search for meaning — is our way of making peace with those silences.
In that sense, our greatness and our tragedy are the same. The dog sleeps peacefully under the stars, unaware of eternity. We, meanwhile, gaze at the same stars and feel both wonder and terror. We invent names for the constellations, stories for the gods who dwell among them, but beneath the stories lingers a quiet despair — the knowledge that we are mortal storytellers.
The human, then, is not the animal who speaks or the animal who prays.
The human is the being who speaks because he prays, and prays because he speaks.
We speak to fill the void; we pray to give it meaning.

The Difficulty of Definition
Why, then, is it so hard to define what is human?
Because to define is to draw a limit — and humans are precisely those creatures who cannot stay within limits. We invent tools that extend our hands, machines that replace our labor, technologies that rewrite our bodies. We write poetry to transcend time, and religions to transcend death.
Every definition we make becomes a wall we are destined to climb.
To call us rational is to ignore our passions; to call us religious is to ignore our doubts. To call us animals is to forget the vastness of our imagination; to call us divine is to forget our bones.
The human essence is perhaps the refusal to have one essence. We are unfinished, open-ended, perpetually becoming.
When the first human carved a shape into stone, when the first voice rose in song, something extraordinary happened: the animal began to echo itself across time. The present ceased to be only the present; memory and imagination were born. We became temporal beings, haunted by the past and longing for the future.
That, too, is what makes definition impossible: we exist in time, and time itself is movement, change, decay. To define a moving river is to misunderstand it.
 
The Mirror and the Abyss
Perhaps the truest way to define the human is not by what we are, but by what we seek.
We are the being who looks into the mirror and sees not only a face, but a question.
We are the being who builds meaning upon a void, who sings into the abyss and listens for an echo.
When we call ourselves “speaking animals,” we are acknowledging our ability to turn existence into story. When we call ourselves “religious beings,” we are confessing our inability to live without mystery. Both are true, both incomplete.
What we really are might lie in the space between those truths — in the silence between words, in the doubt between beliefs, in the heartbeat that keeps asking who am I even when no answer comes.
 
A Human Among Humans
Maybe to be human is not something one is, but something one does.
We become human each time we speak honestly, each time we create beauty, each time we reach out to another being and say, “I see you.”
The animal eats to survive; the human shares a meal and calls it communion.
The animal mates; the human loves and writes poetry about it.
The animal dies; the human buries the dead, builds a monument, whispers a prayer.
It is in these gestures — small, fragile, infinitely repeated — that humanity reveals itself.
We are not gods, not pure spirit, not detached reason. We are dust that dreams.
And it is precisely this mixture — this contradiction — that makes us wondrous.
 
In the End
To say “a human is a speaking animal” and “a human is a religious being” is not to choose between two definitions, but to recognize two movements of the same soul: the need to express and the need to transcend.
Speech without transcendence becomes chatter; transcendence without speech becomes silence.
Together, they make the melody of our existence — words rising toward meaning, meaning dissolving into words.
Perhaps that is all we can say with honesty:
the human is the being who cannot stop asking what the human is.
And in that endless question, we find our dignity.

A Stroll for Gen Z 
In this short story, I wanted to reconfigure a classical work for the 21st century generation. For this trip we choose an icon for Gen Z, Timothée Chalamet as Dante, and Snoop Dog as Virgil. Enjoy the ride.
 
The glow of his phone was the only light Timothée knew. He scrolled, thumb a relentless pendulum, through the endless feed of perfectly curated lives, each one a pixelated stab to his own existential ennui. He was Tim, a Gen Z archetype, adrift in a sea of content, and he felt a gnawing emptiness that no viral trend could fill. He’d just hit 1.5 million followers, a number that once promised nirvana, but now felt like an even heavier chain.
“Yo, Timmy, lookin’ a little… pale, my man,” a smooth, resonant voice drawled from beside him.
Tim nearly dropped his phone. He looked up, blinking, to see none other than Snoop Dogg, leaning against a lamp post that wasn't there a second ago. Snoop wore a purple velvet tracksuit that shimmered under no discernible light source, and his ever-present shades reflected a kaleidoscope of forgotten memes.
“Snoop? What the–” Tim began, but Snoop cut him off with a languid wave of his hand.
“Just ‘Snoop D-O-Double-G,’ young blood. Or Virgil, if you nasty. Heard you were feelin’ a little… lost in the sauce of the digital afterlife.”
Tim stared. The air around them began to thicken, growing heavy with the faint scent of stale energy drinks and forgotten Wi-Fi passwords. The ground beneath his feet shifted, no longer the familiar concrete of his apartment building, but something... crunchier. He looked down.
Skulls. Millions of them. Piled high, stretching into an impossibly dark horizon. Each skull had a tiny, cracked smartphone screen where its eyes should be, displaying glitching logos of defunct streaming platforms and the ghostly, lingering smiles of creators who peaked in 2016.
“Welcome, my dude,” Snoop gestured with an open palm. “To the First Circle: The Limbo of the Unsubscribed. Road to hell, paved with the cranial remains of failed YouTubers, influencers, and crypto bros who thought NFTs were gonna save the world.”
Tim gagged. “This… this is a bit much, Snoop.”
“Nah, this is just the intro, my man. You ain’t even seen the real content yet. Keep scrollin’ in your mind’s eye, ‘cause we’re about to drop into the Circles of Gen Z Vanity.”
They began to walk, Tim’s sneakers crunching on the brittle bone and shattered glass. The air grew warmer, humid with the oppressive weight of unseen judgment.
“First up, my friend, is Lust. But not the old-school, flesh-and-blood kind. Nah, this is the lust for Algorithmic Validation.”
Before them stretched a vast, shimmering lake, not of water, but of pure, unadulterated "likes." Figures, ghostly and translucent, swam frantically, trying to scoop up the glowing hearts and thumbs-up. Their faces were contorted in a grotesque dance of desperation and fleeting euphoria. Some tried to perform elaborate dances, others lip-synced to phantom sounds, all for the hope of catching a few more likes before they dissolved into digital dust. A few clutched ancient, flickering flip phones, trying to resurrect long-dead trends.
“These cats,” Snoop explained, his voice unbothered, “they chased the ephemeral high of the ‘For You’ page. The dopamine hit of going viral. But once the algorithm moved on, they were left with nothing but the echo of their own fleeting fame. Can’t turn off the notifications even when there ain't no more notifications to get.”
Tim felt a chill. He’d spent hours meticulously crafting captions, editing selfies until his reflection was a perfect stranger. He tightened his grip on his own phone.
Next, they ascended a staircase made of discarded ring lights and shattered podcast microphones. The air here was thick with a buzzing hum, like a million notifications going off at once.
“This, Timmy, is Gluttony,” Snoop announced. “But it ain’t about eatin’ too much grub. Nah, this is the Gluttony of Content Consumption.”
They peered into a cavern where monstrous, amorphous blobs of humanity sat slumped, their faces illuminated by an infinite scroll of screens. Each blob had multiple devices grafted onto its limbs, eyes darting from TikTok to YouTube to Instagram to Twitch, an endless, insatiable feast of data. They gnashed their teeth, not in hunger, but in frustration when a buffering icon appeared, or when their Wi-Fi signal dipped. Their skin was pale, their muscles atrophied, their only movement the frantic twitch of their thumbs.
“They can’t stop,” Snoop said softly. “Always gotta consume more. The endless scroll is their master. And their punishment? The fear of missing out on anything. They’ll never be truly satisfied, always chasing the next meme, the next drop, the next hot take.”
Tim unconsciously checked his own screen time. It was… not good.
They continued, the landscape growing increasingly bizarre. A river of green screen fluid flowed past them, carrying forgotten Vine stars on rafts of sponsored merchandise.
“Now we gettin’ into the real spice, my man,” Snoop chuckled. “This here is Greed. But for these cats, it’s the Greed for Digital Clout and Crypto Riches.”
They arrived at a vast marketplace where figures in designer streetwear screamed into their phones, trying to sell invisible assets. They clutched imaginary NFTs, touted the value of obscure altcoins, and begged for "likes" and "shares" as if they were tangible currency. Their faces were etched with a frantic desperation, forever chasing the elusive pump-and-dump scheme that would finally make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. Some tried to mine Bitcoin with their bare hands, only to find the rock just crumbled.
“They sold their souls for the promise of a Lambo, a blue checkmark, and a virtual mansion,” Snoop explained, shaking his head. “Now they’re forever trading air and hollow promises. Can’t buy their way out of this one.”
Next, they entered a chamber where figures stood frozen in carefully posed, unflattering angles, perpetually trying to take the perfect selfie. This was Sloth, but transformed into the Sloth of Curated Self-Image.
“They ain’t lazy in the traditional sense,” Snoop clarified. “Nah, they put in work to look like they ain’t put in any work. They spent all their energy crafting the perfect aesthetic, the effortlessly cool vibe. But the actual effort of, you know, doing stuff? Nah. So now they’re stuck in an endless loop of finding their best angle, forever dissatisfied with the results.”
Tim saw a figure, eerily familiar, adjusting an invisible filter on his face, trying to achieve a look of detached indifference. He shivered.
The air grew heavy with a low, guttural roar as they approached the next circle: Wrath, reimagined as the Wrath of the Comment Section.
Here, figures with faces twisted into grotesque masks of rage hurled insults at each other across an invisible digital divide. Their words, projected onto phantom screens, were a torrent of caps-locked fury, crying "ratio!" and "cringe!" and "touch grass!" at unseen targets. They were forever locked in online arguments, their fingers furiously typing venomous replies, never truly heard, never truly understood.
“These cats thought the internet was a debate club,” Snoop observed. “Turns out, it was just a giant echo chamber for their own rage. Now they’re stuck in an eternal flame war, but the only ones getting burned are themselves.”
Tim remembered a few heated exchanges he’d had, defending his latest artistic endeavor from faceless critics. He quickly deleted a mental draft of a scathing reply.
They then came to a vast, glittering expanse, blinding in its artificial brilliance. This was Envy, the Envy of the Highlight Reel.
Figures here were trapped in a perpetual state of comparison. They gazed into shimmering pools that reflected not their own image, but the impossibly perfect lives of others: the exotic vacations, the lavish meals, the effortless beauty, the overflowing stacks of followers. Their faces were a mixture of longing and resentment, forever wishing they had what someone else had, never content with their own reality.
“They scrolled themselves into misery, my man,” Snoop said, his voice laced with a rare hint of sadness. “Always lookin’ over the fence, never appreciating their own pasture. Now they’re stuck watching the highlight reel on an endless loop, knowing it ain’t ever gonna be them.”
Tim looked at his own reflection in a nearby shimmering pool, and for a fleeting second, he saw a younger, happier version of himself, before the pressure of the numbers became overwhelming.
Finally, they stood before a monumental, obsidian tower that pierced the sky. At its peak, a single, gigantic phone screen pulsed with a malevolent, all-encompassing light. This was Pride, the ultimate Gen Z vanity: the Pride of the Influencer God Complex.
Figures here were strapped into elaborate, gilded chairs, their eyes forced open, staring directly at the colossal screen. On the screen, their own faces, perfectly sculpted and eternally young, were displayed. They were worshipped by millions of phantom followers, their every pronouncement lauded as genius, their every action imitated. But they were immobile, unable to interact, unable to create, able only to be. Their punishment was to eternally witness their own manufactured divinity, isolated and utterly alone in their self-worship.
“They thought they were gods, my man,” Snoop’s voice was low, almost a whisper. “Thought their followers were their loyal subjects. Now they’re just content, forever trapped in their own curated image, unable to truly connect with anyone, not even themselves.”
Tim felt a profound dread. He thought of his own carefully constructed online persona, the distance he’d put between himself and his true self. He looked at the vast, desolate landscape of digital damnation, the endless scrolling, the incessant notifications, the constant comparisons.
Snoop turned to him, his shades momentarily slipping, revealing eyes that held an ancient, knowing wisdom. “So, Timmy, you done seen the circles. You still thinkin’ that little phone in your hand is your whole world, or is there somethin’ else out there, somethin’ real, worth scrollin’ for?”
Tim looked at his phone, the familiar weight suddenly alien in his hand. The screen, once a source of endless fascination, now seemed dim, insignificant. He slowly, deliberately, pressed the power button. The screen went dark.
The skulls of the failed YouTubers still crunched under his feet, the digital cries of the damned still echoed, but something had shifted. The air felt a little less suffocating, the light a little less artificial.
“I… I think I’m ready to find out,” Tim said, a nascent spark of something real flickering within him.
Snoop smiled, a slow, knowing grin. “That’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout, young blood. The journey back up? That’s where the real content is.”
And with a final, knowing nod, Snoop Dogg, Virgil of the Digital Underworld, began to lead Tim, a Gen Z Dante, away from the screen-lit abyss, towards a light that promised not likes, but actual living.
 

In this increasingly globalized and interconnected world, the question arises: Does art need a nationality to be heard? For centuries, artists have drawn inspiration from their cultural roots—expressing collective identities, ancestral traditions, and the spirit of their homelands. From the brushstrokes of Chinese ink paintings to the rhythmic vibrancy of West African textiles, art has often functioned as a mirror of place and belonging. But what of the artists who feel culturally unmoored—those without a clear national or ethnic grounding? Is their art somehow less authentic, less visible, or even less “real”?
​
Art as a Cultural Emblem
Historically, art has been intimately linked to national and cultural identity. The Renaissance is Italian. Ukiyo-e is Japanese. French Impressionism, Mexican muralism, Russian Constructivism—the movements themselves bear the fingerprints of geographic and political histories. State institutions and public funding mechanisms have reinforced this link, curating national narratives through museums, biennales, and cultural grants.
Nationalism, too, has seized upon art for ideological ends, using it to forge collective identities or exclude outsiders. In such a context, artists have often been encouraged—or pressured—to produce work that affirms their national character, reducing the scope of their expression to symbols of origin.

The Individual Beyond Borders
Yet art is not only a product of collective identity. It is also the language of the individual. Many artists find their voices not by embracing inherited roots but by questioning them—or by existing outside them altogether.
Today, countless artists live in a state of cultural in-betweenness. Diaspora, exile, migration, and global mobility have led to what some call "third-culture identities"—people who do not fully belong to any one culture yet are shaped by many. Some have grown up speaking multiple languages, living in hybrid spaces, or actively resisting traditional definitions of where they are "from."
For these artists, cultural disconnection is not an absence—it is a condition, a presence in its own right. But in a world that often seeks the neatly packaged “identity story,” their art can seem hard to categorize. The absence of rootedness is mistaken for absence of meaning.

The Risk of Silence
The international art world, while professing openness and diversity, still frequently demands a narrative that locates artists within cultural parameters. Curators, galleries, and institutions often ask: What is your origin? What community does your work represent? For those who don't have a satisfying answer—or for whom the question itself feels irrelevant—visibility can be elusive.
Artists without a clear cultural label may find their work dismissed as lacking in “authenticity.” In truth, the very notion of authenticity is complicated: Is it something one inherits, or something one constructs? Can an artist be authentic simply by being honest about their estrangement?

Making Space for the Unrooted
The voices of unrooted artists are essential. They embody our current moment—a time of dislocation, hybrid identity, and shifting borders. Their work may speak to universal experiences: loss, loneliness, resilience, curiosity, contradiction. These are not tied to a flag or a folklore. They are human.
And perhaps therein lies the answer. Art that emerges from a place of cultural disconnection does not lack voice. It simply speaks in another register—one that doesn't rely on inherited traditions but on raw emotional clarity, on personal narrative, on experimentation unbound by expectation.

Toward a Broader Listening
Rather than asking whether art has a nationality, perhaps we should ask: What assumptions are we making when we look at a piece of art? Are we more willing to listen when we can attach a story of roots, heritage, and homeland? Are we less attentive when the story is ambiguous?
To truly value all forms of expression, we must move beyond the framework that binds art to nationhood. We must create room for artists who feel culturally disconnected—not as a failure of identity, but as an identity in itself. Their art doesn’t speak from a fixed place. It speaks from the threshold, the crossroads, the sea between shores.
In that in-between space, there is power. And there is voice.

We live in an era that loudly champions individuality. From childhood, we are taught to be ourselves, to follow our dreams, to break the mold. Social media feeds overflow with mantras of freedom, self-expression, and rebellion against conformity. And yet, for all our celebration of autonomy, we consistently and even fervently elect leaders. We seek them out in politics, in business, in social causes, even in spiritual life. Why do we do this? Why, in a world that tells us to be free and think for ourselves, do we keep asking someone else to show us the way?
​
This contradiction lies at the heart of human society. We speak the language of independence, but we organize ourselves around figures of authority. We claim to want freedom, but we also crave direction. Is this merely human nature? Or is it, as Voltaire subtly hinted in Candide, a matter of failing to "cultivate our own garden"? Voltaire’s advice—"il faut cultiver notre jardin"—is both literal and metaphorical. He advocates for personal responsibility, for tending to our own corner of the world. It’s a call to focus on what we can control, to stop meddling in grand philosophical debates or futile wars and instead invest our energy into what really matters: daily acts of integrity and care.

Yet modern life tempts us with the opposite. We wade into every conversation, every crisis, every opinion war—regardless of how well we understand it—armed with conviction. Our desire to be in the driver’s seat is often more about control than responsibility. We want to feel in charge, but we hesitate to accept the consequences of true leadership, especially in our own lives.

Herein lies the dichotomy: we know what is right. We know we should be kind, honest, courageous. We know laws are meant to protect the weak and organize the strong. We know that our choices shape the world we live in. But we don’t always act accordingly. So, we outsource responsibility. We elect someone to "remind" us to respect the law. We wait for others to lead us into the future. We want a captain, but we resist steering the ship when the waters get rough.

This isn’t necessarily hypocrisy. It’s fear—or perhaps, even more often, laziness. The fear of being wrong. The fear of standing alone. The fear of failing. Leading oneself, after all, is hard. It requires constant discipline, clarity, and moral courage. It’s much easier to follow a set of rules, to blame someone else when things go wrong, or to criticize decisions made by others without ever having to make one ourselves.

There’s also a psychological comfort in leadership. Leaders give form to chaos. They promise direction in uncertain times. We project our hopes and frustrations onto them, expecting them to fix what we cannot, or will not, fix ourselves. It’s a kind of magical thinking—we imagine that by placing the right person in power, the world will sort itself out.
But it never does. Not entirely. Because no leader can replace the moral responsibility of the individual. No law can substitute for personal ethics. No external system can resolve the internal struggle between what we know is right and what we actually do.
This tension—between knowledge and action, between personal autonomy and collective leadership—runs deep in the human condition. It’s not a modern dilemma. Ancient texts wrestled with it, too. Plato envisioned philosopher-kings, reluctant leaders compelled to rule because of their wisdom, not ambition. The Bible, in its story of the Israelites demanding a king, explores the consequences of trading freedom for authority. Across time, cultures have both revered and mistrusted leaders, because they reflect our own contradictions.

So, why do we need leaders?
Perhaps the honest answer is: we don’t always need them, but we want them. We want them when we are overwhelmed. We want them when we are uncertain. We want them to carry the burden of responsibility we are not yet ready to bear. And maybe that’s not entirely a failing—it can be a pragmatic arrangement. In a complex society, leaders serve a function. They coordinate, represent, organize. They make decisions when consensus is impossible. But the danger comes when we stop at delegation and abandon our own role entirely.

Because at the end of the day, each of us is still responsible for our own garden. Leadership starts at home. In how we treat others. In the honesty of our daily actions. In the courage to admit when we’re wrong and to do better. In the willingness to engage not just with our opinions, but with the responsibilities those opinions imply.

The world doesn’t need more voices yelling from the backseat. It needs more hands on the wheel. More people willing to act in accordance with what they know is right. More individuals who don’t just speak about freedom, but live it—through self-mastery, humility, and compassion.

The paradox may never fully resolve. We are human. We seek both independence and connection. We fear and revere power. But perhaps we can shift the focus—from asking why we need leaders, to asking how we can lead ourselves better. Not to dominate others, but to live more honestly, more freely, and more responsibly. So next time we look to elect a leader, maybe the real question is: what kind of follower will we be? Passive or participatory? Blaming or accountable? Waiting or cultivating?
​
Voltaire’s garden still waits. The soil is ours to tend.

On a warm Friday evening at Bloom Gallery, something quietly powerful unfolded. Instead of the usual gentle shuffle of shoes on concrete, murmured comments, and the thoughtful stares of viewers absorbing the works on display, the gallery pulsed with a different kind of energy—one of curiosity, play, and creative engagement. We had prepared a simple invitation: participate. Not merely in thought or emotion, but in action.
We provided a modest offering: a table set with materials—pens, crayons, palettes of color—and a stack of blank 10x10 cm wooden panels. The premise was straightforward: choose a panel, paint whatever you like, and hang it on the wall alongside others. It was artmaking distilled to its most democratic form—free, open, and inclusive. By the end of the evening, over 100 miniature works of art had appeared on the gallery wall, a growing mosaic of expression, color, and individuality.
What occurred was more than just an interactive event. It was a subtle, collective transformation. Visitors were no longer passive observers confined to the role of spectator. They became artists, participants in the living language of art. In this moment, the gallery space—traditionally curated and contemplative—became a site of shared authorship and joy. This experience speaks to something essential about our relationship with art: that the act of creating is, in itself, a form of savoring.

The Aesthetic Shift: From Passive to Active
Galleries often function as sanctuaries of reverence. The lighting is precise, the silence meaningful, the gaze contemplative. But while this fosters a space for reflection and interpretation, it can also quietly position the visitor as an outsider—someone invited to look, but not to touch; to feel, but not to respond.
By offering a paintbrush and a wooden square, we disrupted this expectation. We invited the viewer into the studio, metaphorically and literally. The barrier between the artist and the audience dissolved. And in that dissolution, a different kind of appreciation emerged—an embodied appreciation.
This shift from passive to active aligns with a broader truth: to truly understand art, one must sometimes get their hands dirty. The act of creating—even a small, spontaneous image—teaches things that viewing alone cannot. It teaches respect for the process, appreciation for the vulnerability of expression, and wonder at the variety of visual voices that can emerge from even the humblest tools.

Savoring Art as an Act of Creation
We often think of “savoring” in the realm of food, music, or natural beauty—slow, mindful enjoyment that allows us to dwell in the richness of experience. When we savor art as viewers, we take time to explore its visual language, interpret its meaning, and feel its emotional resonance.
But what if savoring art could also mean participating in its creation?
The joy evident on the faces of our participants last Friday suggests exactly this. Dipping a brush into paint, watching colors mix, responding to texture and impulse—these are all acts of attentiveness. They demand presence. In this state, people weren’t just producing images; they were engaging in a form of savoring. Their awareness shifted inward, to the tactile moment of making, and outward, toward the shared creative energy around them.
Savoring through participation also generates empathy. Once someone has tried to create—even for just 10 minutes—they look differently at professional art. They understand, even if only intuitively, the choices, risks, and rhythms behind the finished work. The gallery becomes not just a site of display, but a site of dialogue.

Art as Commons, Not Commodity
In today’s hyper-curated art world, where art is often monetized, mystified, or placed on inaccessible pedestals, creating a space where anyone can make and display their work—even temporarily—is radical. It reclaims art as a communal, human act. It reminds us that art is not reserved for the trained, the talented, or the elite; it is a language we all speak, even if our dialects differ.
There was a quiet dignity in the process: a parent painting beside their child, a couple collaborating on a shared piece, someone painting with obvious skill and someone else laughing at their “mess,” only to find unexpected beauty in it. Each panel told a different story, but the collective result was more than a patchwork. It was a portrait of a community engaging with its creative potential.
In this act, we witnessed how art can function as a common, something collectively built, enjoyed, and enriched by shared participation. It’s not about mastery. It’s about meaning. And meaning, after all, is more often co-created than imposed.

The Gallery as Living Space
By allowing visitors to contribute directly to the exhibition, we redefined the gallery—not as a mausoleum of finished objects, but as a living, breathing space of exchange. Each panel added to the wall was a heartbeat, a voice in the chorus, a brick in the ongoing construction of what it means to make art together.
This temporary installation—spontaneous, colorful, unpretentious—was a reminder that the gallery doesn’t always need to hold only polished or pre-approved work. Sometimes, it should be a mirror, reflecting the creative spirit of those who walk through its doors. It should be a stage for participation, not just performance.
And importantly, no one asked, “Is it good enough?” That question, often so deeply rooted in our self-consciousness, fell away in the face of shared joy. Instead, people asked, “Can I add another one?” or “Where do I hang mine?” That eagerness was not about validation, but about connection—about joining something larger than oneself.

Toward a More Participatory Future
Friday’s event was a beautiful experiment, but perhaps it’s more than that. Perhaps it’s a model, a small-scale glimpse of how we might reimagine the role of the public in art spaces. At a time when people crave genuine connection, creativity offers a universal path.
Participation doesn’t dilute the value of art; it expands it. It widens the circle. It transforms the gallery from a container of objects into a container of experiences.
As curators, artists, and cultural organizers, our task may not be just to present art—but to invite others into its making. To say: “You, too, have a voice here.” To blur the line between audience and artist in favor of something more fluid, more human, and more alive.
Friday night showed us what happens when we extend that invitation. Over 100 little paintings now hang side-by-side, bright squares of expression suspended on our gallery wall. Each one is unique, imperfect, and full of life.
Together, they form something greater than the sum of their parts: a collective memory, a joyful experiment, and a reminder that the true power of art is not just in being seen, but in being shared.

Yesterday, as the lights went out across Valencia and much of Spain, a different kind of illumination emerged—one not powered by electricity or the internet, but by humanity, solidarity, and simple kindness. In a moment where modern infrastructure faltered, where our digital lifelines disappeared and the comforts of convenience paused, the people of Valencia showed that their true power lies not in machines, but in the goodness of their hearts.
The blackout, following so closely on the heels of the DANA floods that had already tested the resilience of the region, could have felt like another blow. Instead, it became something unexpected: a demonstration of grace under pressure, of calm where there could have been chaos, and of community in a world that often feels disconnected.

The Silence of the Machines
As the power cut swept across the city, the first thing most of us noticed was the silence. No hum of refrigerators, no buzz from neon lights, no traffic signals clicking through their cycle. Phones lost signal. Wi-Fi dropped. The tap of keyboards fell away. For a few moments, Valencia fell still.
But in that silence, something else began to rise—a murmur of voices, real voices, not ones filtered through screens or speakers. People stepped out of their homes. Neighbors talked, some for the first time in months. Drivers, usually isolated in their vehicles, rolled down their windows and coordinated passage at dead intersections with hand gestures and smiles. Cafeteria owners stepped out into the streets and shrugged when customers tried to pay: “Don’t worry about it—next time.”
There was no panic. There was presence. We looked at each other instead of down at our phones. And in doing so, we remembered that we are more than consumers, commuters, or workers—we are part of something larger, something rooted in shared experience.

Radio Renaissance
In the absence of internet and television, radios became sacred again. People gathered around car stereos and battery-powered sets like something out of another era. It was strangely beautiful—strangers leaning in together, listening to updates, piecing together what had happened and what might come next. These spontaneous gatherings transformed sidewalks and plazas into temporary living rooms. The city, momentarily unmoored from the digital world, began to beat with a slower, more human rhythm.
These moments reminded us that while technology connects us, it also distracts us. The blackout peeled away the distractions. What remained was essential: our voices, our presence, our willingness to be with each other, even in confusion or uncertainty.

The Valencian Spirit
There’s something deeply rooted in the Valencian character that shone through yesterday. It's hard to define exactly, but if you live here long enough, you feel it. It’s a mix of generosity, resilience, humor, and practicality. Maybe it’s in the sun, or in the sea breeze, or in the way people here still take the time for a café con leche and a conversation. But when the city went dark, that spirit lit up like never before.
At street corners where traffic lights had gone black, people took turns with patience and grace. No honking, no shouting. Just mutual understanding. In the markets, vendors continued serving regulars, some even giving away fresh bread and fruit rather than letting it spoil. No one kept score. It felt natural, even obvious: Help each other out. That’s what we do.
This is not to romanticize hardship. The flood and the blackout were real challenges, with real consequences. But moments like these show that hardship doesn’t have to isolate us. In fact, it can be a force that binds us more tightly.
​
The Economy of Trust
One of the most striking aspects of yesterday was the spontaneous emergence of what I’ll call an “economy of trust.” With card readers down and ATMs offline, money as we know it temporarily lost meaning. But trust stepped in to fill the gap. Business owners allowed customers to take their coffee or groceries and come back another time to settle up. No receipts. No systems. Just a nod, a handshake, and an understanding.
This kind of trust is fragile in many places, but in Valencia, it held strong. It wasn’t taken advantage of; it was respected. People didn’t exploit the moment—they honored it. That’s a kind of social wealth we don’t talk about often enough. And it’s worth more than all the technology we temporarily lost.

Human First, Always
What does it say about us that it takes a blackout for us to look each other in the eyes? Why is it in moments of breakdown that we remember to be human?
Perhaps because in those moments, the systems we usually rely on—economic, digital, logistical—fade into the background, and we’re left with something more immediate. Ourselves. Each other.
In times of uncertainty, we see who we really are. And yesterday, the people of Valencia showed that we are, above all else, decent. We’re willing to listen, to give, to care. When the structure around us collapses, the community holds.
​
A Lesson Worth Remembering
As the lights flicker back on and the Wi-Fi reconnects, there’s a risk that we’ll forget what we felt yesterday. That we’ll slip back into digital detachment and transactional thinking. But we don’t have to.
We can carry forward the lessons from the blackout. We can keep greeting our neighbors, keep offering help without expecting anything in return, keep trusting that most people, when given the chance, will choose kindness. We can remember that behind every screen name, every email, every blip of data, is a person—just like us, just trying to make it through the day with a little dignity and a little joy.
The blackout may be over, but the light it revealed—the light inside us—is still burning.

​




​In our hyper-connected digital age, where opinions travel faster than facts, one disturbing intellectual trend keeps growing: the urge to retroactively judge history through the lens of modern morality. We are told to tear down statues, rename streets, cancel historical figures, and rewrite textbooks—to correct the past, as if we were gods looking down on it with superior vision. But judging from the past based on today’s values is as absurd as blaming a newborn for a traffic accident they’ll have in 40 years. It misunderstands the nature of time, civilization, and what it means to be human.
Civilizations Grow Like People
Civilizations, like people, are born in darkness. They crawl, stumble, and sometimes run before they walk. They learn, fight, fail, love, and rise again. To expect moral maturity from ancient societies is like expecting a child to recite a philosophical treatise on justice before they’ve even learned to speak. Yes, there was slavery. Yes, there was war, empire, disease, despotism. And yes, there was discovery, invention, liberation, poetry, and love. These opposites do not cancel each other, they coexist, forming the rich, complex reality of human history. To whitewash history is not to heal it, it is to amputate it.
The Dangerous Fantasy of the Time Machine
Let’s play the revisionist game for a moment. Say we invent a time machine. We go back and stop every tyrant, prevent every war, cure every plague, abolish every injustice. Nice idea. But then ask: where would we be now? Without tyranny, would we have discovered liberty? Without empire, would global civilizations have connected? Without oppression, would we have written constitutions? Without war, would we have built peace? The cause-and-effect principle, the foundational law of existence, tells us something uncomfortable: progress often grows out of pain.
Slavery, Democracy, and the Paradox of Progress
Slavery is abhorrent—but its existence shaped the world we live in. The brutal, shameful system gave birth to abolitionism, civil rights movements, and a deeper understanding of human dignity. Democracy did not emerge in a vacuum. It emerged because people lived under kings, emperors, and theocratic rule, and eventually said enough. The abuses of the past gave meaning to the freedoms of the present. We love democracy but forget that it is the child of despotism. The very ideas we now hold sacred were forged in the fires we wish had never been lit.
The Illusion of a “Pure” History
Some argue: “If Christopher Columbus had not discovered America, the indigenous peoples would have been spared.” Maybe. But then maybe there would be no Enlightenment, no global scientific exchange, no United Nations, no internet. Maybe we would still be living in fragmented, isolated societies, each fearing the other.

The same goes for the Sykes–Picot Agreement or the Crusades or the Hundred Years’ War. These are not isolated evils. They are links in a long, painful, but necessary chain. To break one link is to unravel the whole. We are not passengers watching history from a distance—we are its inheritors. And our modern privileges rest on ancient shoulders.
Cancel Culture vs. Historical Complexity
Canceling historical figures doesn’t make us wiser. It makes us shallow. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves—and wrote the Declaration of Independence. Churchill held colonialist views—and defeated fascism. The same duality lives in us. If perfection is the standard, then none of us will survive the judgment of the future. Instead of rewriting history, let’s read it more carefully. Let’s teach the contradictions, not hide them. Let’s learn how flawed people created extraordinary things—not to excuse them, but to understand them. And to understand ourselves.
History as a Mirror, Not a Weapon
The past is not a crime scene. It’s a mirror. When we look into it, we don’t just see “them”—we see ourselves. Their mistakes, their ambitions, their fears, their triumphs… they are ours, too. To grow as a civilization, we need to stop throwing stones at the past and start asking better questions: What did they believe? Why did they act that way? What can we learn—not erase—from their journey? The maturity of a society is measured not by how well it judges its ancestors, but by how well it understands them.
Conclusion: Grow Up, Not Backward
There’s a deep immaturity in trying to correct history from the comfort of the present. It is childish to wish the world had been simple, pure, or perfect. It never was. And that’s what makes its achievements more beautiful—not less.
We are here because countless generations struggled, suffered, built, and believed. They weren’t always right—but they kept moving forward. That is the only standard that matters.
Let’s stop pretending we’re above history. We are history. And if we don’t start respecting its complexity, we may lose the wisdom it offers.
Final Thought
As G.K. Chesterton once said:
“The object of the progressive is to go on making mistakes. The object of the conservative is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. But the wise man learns from the mistakes of both.”
Let us be wise. Not perfect. Not pure. Just grown-up enough to see the full picture.

Last Friday, as golden light melted over the hills of Castellón, I found myself at the Hermita de San Sebastián, a small rural chapel now transformed into a site of contemporary questioning, a space between past and present, earth and spirit. The art opening, titled The Sacred and the Profane, seemed to ripple with more than just aesthetic intention. It asked something deeper: What is sacred? What is profane?
​
These questions hovered in the air like incense, carried in quiet conversations between paintings and visitors. They were not questions meant to be answered but lived. And perhaps that is the point—these binaries, these categorizations, are not fixed coordinates in the universe. They are stories we tell ourselves, born from our own evolving consciousness. At one point in history, the moon was a goddess. She was Inanna, Artemis, Selene—an eye in the heavens, watching over our world with divine intent. We danced under her glow, planned our harvests and rituals in tune with her cycles. The moon held mystery and power. But then, something shifted. Through the telescope's lens, she became a rock, a satellite of Earth, a celestial object subject to laws of physics rather than divine will. Did the moon change? Of course not. We changed. The sacred and the profane are not absolutes; they are mirrors of our inner world. What we deem sacred is what we choose to elevate, to protect, to give meaning. What we call profane is often what we reject, fear, or misunderstand. These are human constructs—reflections of culture, need, and evolution.

Historically, civilizations have created gods in their own image. Anthropologist James Frazer wrote about how primitive societies personified natural forces—thunder, rain, sun, moon—granting them names, faces, and wills. The gods served not only as explanations for the inexplicable, but as guides for social behavior. Stories of gods taught us about courage, justice, love, jealousy, betrayal. The divine became our moral compass. And yet, the very gods who preached compassion were invoked to justify wars. The prophets who taught humility became symbols of dominance. How many have suffered, killed, or been killed in the name of the sacred? In every age, from the Crusades to present-day extremism, we’ve seen how religion—meant to connect us to the divine—can be twisted into a tool of division. The sacred, when institutionalized, can become dangerous.

Perhaps what we are confronting now, as a modern species, is not the death of the sacred, but its transformation. We no longer need gods with thunderbolts or commandments carved in stone to teach us basic human virtues. We know, deep within, what kindness looks like. We know what suffering feels like. We are capable of empathy without divine punishment hanging over our heads. The sacred, today, may not dwell in the heavens, but in the simple acts of care between beings. At the same time, the profane has shifted too. There was a time when dancing, sexuality, even women's voices were considered profane—unclean, dangerous. Today, many of these are reclaimed as expressions of vitality, authenticity, and even healing. What was once suppressed is now embraced. We are reshaping the map of what is "holy" and what is "unholy."

In the art exhibited at Hermita de San Sebastián, I saw this dialectic play out. One piece juxtaposed religious iconography with secular intimacy—flesh and faith entangled. Another offered a stark, almost brutal representation of abandonment, as if to say: Where is God in the silence? These works didn’t preach; they provoked. They offered no answers but insisted on the question: Is the sacred found in beauty, or in suffering? In ritual, or rebellion?

To me, the sacred today lies in awareness. In presence. In the ability to stand before a mountain, a painting, or another human being and feel something stir in the soul. That stirring—that awe—is a kind of prayer, even if no god is named. The sacred is not confined to churches, temples, or mosques; it lives in the act of witnessing, of feeling deeply. It can be found in music, in poetry, in birth, in death. It is not a domain of the chosen, but of the open.

And what of the profane? Perhaps it is simply what we have not yet understood. What we fear, we often vilify. But within the profane may also be liberation. The "profane" can shock us out of complacency, challenge norms, dismantle dogma. It is the artist’s realm—the edge, the underground, the grotesque. Without the profane, the sacred loses its contrast. Without shadow, no light.

Standing under the arches of the Hermita, surrounded by artwork, candlelight, and murmurs of reflection, I realized that the building itself had undergone a metamorphosis. Once a house of Catholic worship, now a platform for contemporary exploration, it was no less sacred. Perhaps even more so, because it held within it multiple truths, multiple questions. It was no longer a monument to a single god, but a space for dialogue between gods, people, and ideas.

So, what is sacred? It is what we hold with reverence. A child’s laughter. A moment of forgiveness. A work of art that makes us weep. And what is profane? Perhaps only that which we exile from the sacred until we are ready to look again and find the divine hidden in its folds. In the end, maybe the question is not what is sacred or what is profane, but what are we choosing to sanctify? What meanings are we weaving into the fabric of our lives? What gods are we still creating, and what old ones are we ready to release? And maybe the most sacred act of all is asking the question itself—with honesty, humility, and an open heart.