English
I- Do you remember me? We met in January of 1966, when I wrote the introduction for the exhibition you did then at Galería Bonino in New York.
II- Yes, I remember. I thought you were an art critic. In some way, you led me to stop painting for nine years. It was when I intended to take on chaos by way of complex installations, but you made me see that I was only setting parts of myself in opposition to parts of myself, that is, that everything was united in my own self. Also, since everything was just as complicated as I was suggesting it was, I stopped making work for a time.
I- In other words, I am not entirely to blame. Actually, we had already met earlier, when you wanted to paint but only had the nerve to be a journalist. That was between 1955 and 1961. That was until you won the French grant and went to Paris, and sent me to the devil. You believed yourself to be a painter.
II- Yes, but I got my vengeance when I wrote Antiestética (Anti-Aesthetics) in 1965.
I- Oh, really? Wasn’t it me who wrote that?
II- OK, in the end, we’re always together.
I- But wasn’t it that I hadn’t seen you since 1966?
II- I will recognize you as many times as you like, in other words, I will also ignore you whenever I feel like it.
I- Yes, but it’s true that you have written many prologs for others signing my name.
II- It’s mine.
I- No. Your name is Yuyo Noé and mine is Luis Felipe Noé.
II- And yet I always sign my exhibitions as Luis Felipe Noé.
I- Yes, but no one calls you Luis Felipe. Felipe in any case.
II- I detest being called Felipe. My name is Luis Felipe. At the most I tolerate being called Luis.
I- No, I’m the one who is called Luis Felipe. And no one argues about it with me because it only exists when I sign it.
II- We can agree on that much, because Luis Felipe only exists for the catalogs, since who I really am is Yuyo. […]
I- Fine, let’s go on to something else. […] When did you begin to conceive of this series in pictorial terms?
II- Is there any conception that exists prior to the act of painting? Is there anything that can be enunciated before being linguistically formulated? The only thing I can tell you is that I was reading Painting and Experience in 15th century Italy (1) by Michael Baxandall at that time and was becoming aware of the fact that Renaissance perspective was an abstract projection that was filled with characters. As such, the same thing could happen to any other form of abstraction (that is to say without immediate references). I began to play with rhythms but that play immediately led to it being populated by my internal world, which is no other than that which surrounds me, that is, the external one.
I- Do you like speaking paradoxically?
II- Gold star for the news flash! (2) Wasn’t it you who taught me? We could leave the formal address behind and speak like friends, (3) don’t you think?
I- OK. Let’s end this farce.
II- The farce of the prolog?
I- Why not? But first, I’d like you to clarify something for me. I am under the understanding that you are opening a show at Galería Rubbers on November 3. Why hold two exhibitions instead of just one, on account of it having to do with one same series?
II- You’re testing my patience.
I- Weren’t we going to speak as friends? Why do you get so exasperated when you’re unable to give a clear answer?
II- Do you think that I have any sense of moderation?
I- No.
II- Then why do you ask that of me?
I- No. I only want to understand.
II- “Be fruitful [in Spanish, Creced or grow], and multiply” and what happens once you are quite grown up already, and the work begins to multiply?
I- I observe that this series is not univocal. Some paintings seem to be constructive…
II- On the contrary. They are deconstructive. But I do admit, and will accept here, that he who deconstructs, constructs. Others, in contrast, are made, with an excess of canvas; there are wrinkles everywhere. They look like a marriage bed when you get up: creases over more creases.
I- And others are loaded with symbolic expressionism.
II- I don’t think so. But I would accept the classification on the sole condition of keeping in mind that the man or woman who contemplates, not my paintings at this point, but the reality that I attest to in my own way in my work, has no option other than resignation, though they may try to fight against it. This attitude re-inverts expressiveness, and symbolically holds its tongue in words.
I- Is that where painting begins? Do the images emerge?
II- Yes, on account of being choked back, with no name. [...]
I- Do you have anything else to say?
II- Wait, are we speaking on familiar terms?
I- It is impossible to maintain distance between us; we are one and the same person.
II- It’s already quite good. Two people can understand one another. I thought we were a collective group, full of people.
I- Resigned?
II- In whatever way possible. As long as color exists, there is hope.
I- As long as words exist, too.
II- To each his own.
I- But we are only one.
II- Ah yes! I’d forgotten.
(1) In the original, El ojo del quatrocento is cited, the Spanish translation of the same work.
(2) In the original, “Chocolate por la noticia”, a sarcastic idiom implying that it is obvious.
(3) In the original, tutearnos, to use the familiar “tu” conjugation