My conception of art

                                       The persistence of Memory. Dalí.

Since classical times, humanity has been discussing what beauty and art are, and even today, there is no consensus at all. For such a reason, there are countless books on what art is, and most of them don't coincide with each other.

Researching about it, you can find that art is:

• Beautiful or pleasant things. 
• An ideological instrument.
• A mystery only understandable from the emotions. 
• A set of rules and structures.
• A way to break social standards.
• Everything. 

And the list goes on almost to infinity. And the lack of agreement is so extreme that all the definitions and meanings found in dictionaries and encyclopedias are very vague, which doesn't help. Not even through history is it possible to find accord about this matter, as every era and society see art differently. That alone should give a clue to people who act sectarian and point their finger, as if they are omniscient scholars, and say, "this is not art.", but whatever.

Personally, I find the discussion very interesting. Unfortunately, something as pure as art is full of fights, attacks, and criticism. Discussions about what art is are abundant of animadversion against others' work, intentional or not. That is because no matter how narrow or broad a definition is, it will eventually be exclusive. Definitions involve setting limits, and by giving one, you could be saying someone's work is not art, and that is offensive, for sure.

Just see how some say fanfictions are not literature, the current rock is not music, or that modern art is not art at all. That's, of course, very insulting. And in my opinion, these people have a narrow vision of what art is.

What art is

As I told you, there are many ways of conceiving art, and I have come across some of them. Before sharing with you my conception of art, it seems fitting to talk about it first. 

Art as something beautiful

Let's first look at the one that specifies that art is only beautiful or pleasant. At first, it sounds pretty logical, but then we can find some problems. Saying that only beautiful things are art is not correct because it is not entirely conclusive. After all, what is beauty, what is gorgeous, is another discussion with no end. And even if there were an agreement about it, there is ugly art; we can't negate it.

Some pieces, stories, poems, movies, songs exist with the sole intention of awakening negative emotions in us: anger, sadness, or just mere aversion or fear, and they are art not despite it, but because of it. For example, no one would say Saturn devouring his son by Goya is not art because it depicts such terrible acts as filicide, cannibalism, and gore. It's not precisely attractive, but the opposite. However, it's artistic, and to say the contrary would be nonsense, for sure.

.

Saturn devouring his son. Goya.

Art as a set of rules

This is one of the visions of art that convinces me the least since it imposes a considerable limitation for the development of art in general. Believing that art is a series of unshakable principles implies that art is a rigid monolith that doesn't change, or shouldn't change, over time, and that's wrong, in my opinion. Just see how much art has changed throughout human history, and you'll notice that there are no permanent rules regarding art.

Art is about freedom, not about restrictions, or that is what I believe, so saying art is about rules is untrue. Every era, society, group, and individual has its own distinct style or way to do art, and their pieces don't cease to be art just because they don't coincide with the prevailing customs of the moment. 

And think about it. During countless generations, art has changed massively; in other words, the rules have changed, but the art has endured until today despite it. So the rules? They are not the key.

Simultaneous Visions. Boccioni

Art as rebellion

I have come across claims such as that art is a tool to break models and molds, that its practice is the supreme demonstration of freedom. Therefore, from this point of view, the goal of art is to be an act of rebellion. 

According to this position, art is and must be dissociated from prevailing conventions. Likewise, it affirms that artists are always searching for new methods of expression wholly disconnected from the existing ones. Such things imply a break with social standards, and there is where the rebellion resides. 

Supporters of this view also base their claims that art itself is an unconventional form of communication, and its very practice is thus rebellious.

In my opinion, art is indeed an unconventional form of communication. It doesn't use words in most cases, and when it does (as is the case in literature), it is a use dislocated from everyday utilization of language. Also, it is fully interpretable, and the message is not entirely direct. Among many other things that differentiate the artistic communicative act of, let's say, regular communication. However, is that rebellious? Under some circumstances, it can be. But is the artist's intention to be revolutionary when making art? Not necessarily. 

Art can be an act of rebellion, but it is not per se. Therefore, I wouldn't say that rebellion is what makes a piece artistic because not all art is defiant against standards. For example, millions of artists use traditional methods to make their pieces; others only draw landscapes and "common" things. And you know what? Their works don't cease to be art because of that.

Classical Landscape. Lambert.

Art as something good

Others impose that quality is the determining characteristic of art. Thereby, only the good pieces are art. 

Such a statement is entirely inaccurate because then we would be basing our criteria to determine what is art on things as arbitrary as tastes and preferences. It would be something like: if you like it, it's art; if you don't like it, it's not art. That's not accurate enough at all.

Furthermore, this vision implies that beginning artists or artists with "little" skills are not artists and don't make art. That is not only wrong, but it is also offensive. In addition, it raises specific questions with no correct answer, such as how good must a piece be to be considered art? How skilled does a person have to be to become an artist?

In conclusion, quality is not decisive when we want to tell if something is art or not. It's a criterion too arbitrary for that.

The Dream. Picasso.

Art as an ideological instrument

Of all the existing definitions of art, this one pretty accurate. However, it is also tricky. Let's see why. 

Understanding ideology as "a set of fundamental ideas that characterize the thinking of a person, group or time, of a cultural, religious or political movement, etc.," of course, art is involved with ideology. Even if it's not your primary intention, your art will always reflect your ideology and political views.

Art can be used to instill an ideology in people, and it has also been used with that purpose only. There are countless essays on how the United States ideologically conquered the entire West through movies, television shows, music, books, and any art. And there is evidence that the CIA and other governmental departments did this on purpose.

And although everything said above is true, art is not intrinsically an ideological instrument. It can be one, though. But that's different. And I say that it's not an ideological instrument because, for example, I am sure that when my sister-in-law drew a landscape full of cats, her main goal was not to change the public's perspective about cats. She just wanted to express how much she loves cats.

My point is that art is undoubtedly ideological but as much as anything else. In my opinion, its ideological content is not distinctive and that is why it is not what defines art.

In peaceful fields. Mylnikov

Art as something with no purpose

I once read that art was something made without purpose, and that was its main characteristic. As long as a piece was made for no other purpose than making the piece itself, it was art. Something like the reason for art is the art itself and nothing more. Consequently, art has no practical purpose.

This definition is one of the strangest that I have come across, mainly because it can be understood as if art were something useless.

Besides, some people work making art. So their work isn't art because it also has an economic purpose? Others make art to entertain themselves, feel better, etc. In those cases, aren't their pieces art? And most of what we call art today had a vital religious purpose in ancient times. And no, statues, poems, songs, paintings, and monuments from hundreds or thousands of years ago don't cease to be artistic because of that.

Finally, architecture and gastronomy are also considered art. And we can't negate they have practical purposes, for sure.

In my opinion, the purpose of any art is not related to the artistic quality of the piece.

Abstractions. O'Keeffe

My conception of art

Saying what art is not easy. As a literature student, one of the first things I learned in the first semesters is understanding what literature, and art, by extension, are. I discovered that no definition is satisfactory. However, I developed my own conception of art, which I outlined after taking the Aesthetics class, a class about art and beauty. And I want to share it with you. 

But first, I want to clarify something. I didn't come with my "own" definition of art because I'm too clever or something like that. The idea came directly from my professors, who encouraged me to find my conception of art. It was an assignment, in fact. This entry is nothing more than a college essay turned blog post. And I must be honest and tell you that the conclusions I reached here are not original, but a combination of the ideas of philosophers and intellectuals, historical and modern.

I define art as:

A communicative activity with which the real is interpreted or the imagined is reflected with plastic, linguistic or sound resources whose primary goal is to cause a particular emotional impact on the receiver.

Art is communication. It expresses a message sent with unconventional means by the artist and aims to provoke something in the receiver, that is, the audience. And that "something" is just any kind of feedback, pleasant or not. In that sense, art works like any communicative act because the art itself is one. 

So I believe art is actually an act of two, of the sender and the receiver. As it happens with any communication, art is incomplete if no one receives it and replies to it. If it doesn't cause any feedback.

Delving in the matter, something that doesn't generate any feedback or doesn't communicate anything is not artistic. If you see, let's say, a picture, and it provokes on you nothing but pure indifference, then it's not art. It's as easy as that, in my opinion.

However, this vision of art brings with it some apparent problems. What about some piece that doesn't communicate anything to me but it communicate something to other people? Is it art or not? Well, in that case, I would say it is art, yes. As long as a piece communicates something to someone and generates feedback, even if just from one person from the billions of the whole world, then that work is a work of art.

And that's my view on art; that's what I think art is. Tell me, what is art for you? 

The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Hokusai.

The love for the Hulk is hereditary

Immortal Hulk #1

My original plan was to write about Immortal Hulk #2, one of my favorites from the first 10 issues. But I didn't find the time to do a deep reading, so necessary to write a proper analysis. So, instead, I'm going to talk about something I've wanted to share with my comic mutuals on Twitter since some time ago, and that is the experience of reading comics with my mother, specifically The Immortal Hulk.

But first, I must say I've been a Hulk fan since I was kid. My first contact with the Green Goliath was the Incredible Hulk series from the '90s, where I discovered Dr. Bruce Banner's tragic story, haunted by the military and unable to enjoy a quiet life with the love of his life, Betty Ross, all due to an accident that turned him into the powerful gamma-fueled monster known as the Hulk. In this show, Hulk was portrayed as the pinnacle of physical prowess, and I was amazed to see this unstoppable force proving his might against very imposing antagonists as the Wendigo and the Abomination and I liked that interesting rival that was the Leader. But at the same time, I was sad by the fact that Bruce, and therefore the Hulk, could never be happy. Bruce always had to be on the run, afraid of being caught by the authorities even though he was a good person who saved people whenever he could; and the mere idea of him having a joyful life with Betty was just an impossible dream, and this was so unfair that I couldn't help but feel sympathy for both the scientist and the Jade Giant. I was also surprised to see that it was anger that triggered the transformation. At such age, when seeing that I was like "Woah. When he gets angry he becomes an almost uncontrollable green titan. Incredible". I loved the concept, it was interesting and cool, but very problematic at the same time; but above all, it was something I could relate to when I was a kid (I think almost everyone can relate to it to a degree, eh?). There it started my love for the Hulk, with a show that could portray adequately such interesting and complex characters and themes. 

Title for the 1996 TV series

As you can expect, I enjoyed the character in other shows, movies, and even video games, until I could finally not only watch the Hulk but read it. I can't remember the exact date I had my first Hulk comic, but it was a trade of the second John Byrne's run. I felt like I was reading the best thing in the world, it was a comic book about the incredible Hulk after all! And it was something beyond special to me. First, it was a gift from my older brother; second, it's really hard to find a comic in a store here in my country, so it was a treasure; and third, it was my first superhero comic! And, well, I continued reading more and more comics (everything digital, of course). But nothing has changed my mind that the Hulk is the best there is! Hulk is, and always will be, my favorite thanks to the great stories written by Stan Lee, Peter David, Paul Jenkins, Greg Pak, Al Ewing, and many more, which made me see how complex and interesting the Hulk really is.

The John Byrne trade

Such fanaticism led me eventually to read the Immortal Hulk, my favorite comic book series at the time, and one of my favorites of all time too. Turns out I'm the type of person who always tries to share my latest interests with all my family and friends. If I watch a series, and the show leaves a considerable impression on me, I try to talk about it with almost everyone I know, and I try to get them to watch it too. And in the last two years, my biggest interest has been the Immortal Hulk, so you can assume that I've talked about it repeatedly with my family and friends each time a new issue is released. I even turned my best friend into a Hulk fan with this series! And of course, this includes my mom.

One day, when the series was still about on its first 15 issues, I asked her if she would like to read it with me, she said yes. We started from the beginning, and so far she's enjoyed every issue considerably. She waits for the next one as much as I, and her excitement is huge and honest. We've had very cheerful and long discussions about the issues (she has made me see things I was unable to see myself and that's the best). She finds the art of the series marvelous and shocking; she loves how unpredictable, deep and interesting the plot is and how well defined the characters are. Talking about the characters, her favorites are Jackie Mcgee, Bruce Banner (the whole system), Dr. McGowan, and... Doc Samson (yes, you read it right, Doc Samson. But don't blame her! All she knows about Samson is what is shown on the Immortal Hulk, nothing more). She hates Brian Banner A LOT (logically), she was very angry when the Avengers attacked the Hulk and has trembled at any antagonists who have put the Hulk on the ropes and beyond (which are, well, almost all of them).  And now, she is just waiting to see the destiny of the terrible Leader after all he has done. So you could say she's a Hulk fan, she is part of the gamma gang! But not because of me, I tell you. Actually, my mother has been a fan of the Hulk even since two decades prior to my birth.

The Incredible Hulk (1978)

Around the time I had my first Hulk comic, my mother told me she loved the Hulk when she was a teenager, that she watched the Hulk every day on tv, "when he was called David and the Hulk was just a very tall, muscle man painted green". She told me it was a tragic story, Banner could never have a moment of absolute calm, he always had to be on the road, escaping and fighting all the time, unable to settle and find love, among many other things. She felt a lot of compassion for the poor David, to the point she wanted to be his girlfriend to take care of him (and because Bill Bixby was very handsome too hahahaha). She watched a lot of episodes, probably watched them all, and always smiled when reminiscing those times.

I saw that as something very cool, my mom liked the Hulk too and that was amazing. But despite that, we never actively shared that love, aside from watching The Incredible Hulk movie with Edward Norton and the animated Planet Hulk movie together a long time ago. Maybe this happened because I made the mistake of believing that she wasn't interested enough or because her love for the Jade Giant was somewhat dormant at the time. I'm not sure. But the truth is, we never developed a strong bond based on the Hulk, for years our only conversations about the Hulk were just some occasional fan rants I threw at her. But that changed, as you can see.

One of my mom's favorites moments

While reading Immortal Hulk, I discovered that the love for the Incredible Hulk is actually as immortal as the character itself when I witnessed my mom's love for the Hulk resurrect stronger than ever. She loved that the first issues had some elements present in the 70's series, which was great to her, but what she liked the most was to see how much she didn't know about the Green Goliath. For her, it was a great journey to rediscover a character she liked so much when she was really young and to find out that Bruce and therefore the Hulk was considerably more than her beloved show portrayed. The complexity, the tragedy, the metaphors... Everything was deeper than she thought, and she loved that. She was shocked by Bruce's terrible childhood, she found interesting all the philosophical, theological, and psychological content; she liked to see all the political discourse, and was aghast (in a good way) by the distressing panels, pages, and terrible situations of the series. In conclusion, her once inert love for the Hulk was not only awakened but strengthened by the Immortal Hulk.

As a fan of the Hulk, this was something very beautiful to see. I love my mother with all my being and beyond, and I appreciate to infinity every moment we spend together. So imagine how I feel seeing that our reading of the Immortal Hulk has made our relationship the strongest there is. It is impossible not to smile.

And this is how I ended up enjoying The Immortal Hulk along with who you might say is a veteran when it comes to loving the popular Jade Giant, who is none other than my beloved mother. And, looking at the evidence, it seems the love for the Hulk could be hereditary, no? Just as Skaar inherited his gamma powers from his father, I inherited my love for the Hulk from my mother.

Bruce Banner with his son, Skaar

IN EVERY MIRROR

"THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE IN EVERY MIRROR", with that great line the Immortal Hulk begins, after a quote to Carl Jung put on a dramatic black page, which tunes us into the tone of the series. And I can't say anything more than it's true. I am an example of that. On one side of the mirror, there is the young man who excitedly started his blog mainly to share his views of Immortal Hulk, and on the other side is the young man who didn't know how to start the review of the very #1. And the frightening part is... THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON, MYSELF!

It's nothing new to say that Immortal Hulk is  great, that it's not only one of the best comics Marvel is putting out, but one of the best American comics out there in  the last two years. After more than 40 issues already released counting the One-Shots, two Eisner awards nominations, and being critically acclaimed, it's a widespread truth that Immortal Hulk is good, or at least that many people like it. I'll like to say that I come to tell you something that it's not more of the same, but it's impossible for me to write about Immortal Hulk and not start with "Immortal Hulk is great", because, in my opinion, it is. Al Ewing, Joe Bennet, Ruy José, Berlardino Brabo, Paul Mounts and Cory petit, along with Alex Ross in the covers and a good amount of tremendous guest artists, have been doing an astonishing job with this incredible series since the beginning.

Let's go back to Immortal Hulk #1, an almost standalone story titled "OR IS HE BOTH" about a robber who assaulted a gas station to pay his debt with a gang, killing all the witnesses in the process, including a poor 12-year-old girl, and got his divine and rough punishment by the heavy hands of the HULK. A very good and surprising start, the reading is smooth and intriguing, but also shocking because it could be a little unexpected what Hulk does here, especially if you're expecting this to be a Savage Hulk (Classic Hulk) story. 

Regarding that, #1 also establishes the new status quo in an excellent way, by making you bite your nails as a side effect, either because you got caught up in the story and you want to read the next issue so bad, or because you found the Hulk somewhat disturbing.

The issue tells us this Hulk is apparently a new one. He talks fluently but doesn't talk like Joe Fixit (Gray Hulk). More than righteous, he's vengeful but even more than Green Scar (the main Hulk in Planet Hulk and World War Hulk), and it's more ruthless. In fact, he acts like karma itself, rough and brutal after sentencing by seeing the true self of people that they deserve nothing more than punishment. And I have to admit this is very appealing. Most of us understand revenge, and few things are better than seeing the bad people getting what they deserve. Who wouldn't want to have such power to do, more or less, what Hulk did in this issue?

It also shows us, in a very straightforward way, the Hulk is immortal, as the title tells. Bruce dies but comes back at night as the Hulk. "Bruce Banner can die, but then... There's the other guy" says the officer. The introduction of a new character, Miss Mcgee, a reporter who apparently has some personal problem with the Hulk is also well done. And with these new dynamics that include immortality, rough justice and revenge, and a new Hulk on the loose, I couldn't help but want to see what will happen next, and believes me, there's no way to imagine what happens next.

Now, the art is more than outstanding. I'm not exaggerating. The visuals of this comic are full of dramatism and detail. The emotion they transmit is huge, and the distribution of the panels reinforces this considerably. It's possible to feel the fear, the rage, the sadness, the satisfaction... Some images and pages by themselves are very striking and expressive, like the one illustrating the murder of the girl, the resurrection of Bruce Banner as the Hulk, and more. But the ones that stand out above the others are the two double-page splashes, one after the other to intensify the effect. It just leaves you cold. The Hulk never looked so colossal, so imposing, I have to admit. What a way to express how powerless we are when we have the full force of justice (but also of our own guilt) in front of us.

Having said that, it's more than clear the entire art team did an amazing job. Pencils, Inking, and Colors were on top. These strong images with dark colors and pronounced shading give the issue the perfect atmosphere, an atmosphere that matches 100% with the tragic nature of the plot. And this is another wonderful thing about Immortal Hulk #1, the art is an absolute reflection of the writing and vice-versa, the match is flawless and direct. Comics have two layers, obviously, one is visual and the other is verbal, with words; they're written and drawn at the same time. The message is expressed through images and the plot, and it is the point that both layers go for the same meaning, but Immortal Hulk, and particularly Immortal Hulk #1, achieves this in a very clever, thoughtful way. The broken mirror in the car of the robber, the use of the red color to express killing intent and death, the succession from the pannels of Miss Mcgee talking with the officer to the resurrection of Banner as the Hulk... are really good examples of this, tremendous examples of writing and art perfectly fused to express a message. 

And that's it, that's Immortal Hulk #1! Just that, not really. It so happens that Immortal Hulk # 1 is more than it seems. There are some underlying elements that must be mentioned. 

A rereading lets you see how detailed the creative team was, and how they were writing with a clear future in mind because, in the most subtle way, the very first issue settles some of the core elements and topics the series will touch upon throughout the whole story. These are psychology, ethics, and politics. And, yes, politics. Immortal Hulk has been political since the beginning. It's subtle in this issue, yes, but there you have a clear criticism of the gun industry and the lack of gun control.

It is inevitable to return to the line "there are two people in every mirror". The whole issue is an exemplification of the premise behind said quote visual and plot-wise, and we could say that's the point of the Immortal Hulk series and of the Hulk as a character, to deal with and show the multifaceted nature of humanity. Through the mirror analogy, the comic is saying the human being is a compound of two aspects, the one we recognize as the defining part of our self, our good attributes and positive things about ourselves, and the other one, the aspect we hide, we ignore in purpose and even don't considerate part of ourselves, which is what we abhor about our way of being. In other words, the human duality of reason and instinct, analysis and reaction, or simpler, the good and bad things that exist within our self. In the terms of Immortal Hulk, the aspect we can see, and the one we don't want to. 

Just look at how much we separate that shadow-half of our self from ourselves that when we harm our loved ones, we say something like "I'm sorry, I really didn't want to hurt you. It was a mistake." As if to suggest that what led us to say or do ugly things was an external force that doesn't exist within us. But the truth is, that's a lie. At that time we wanted to purposefully cause harm, we let ourselves be driven by our dark motivations, incubated in the malicious part of our self, to hurt them. And what happens is that, as soon as we return to our analytical state, we notice we did wrong and we want to amend the mistake, and so to be able to bear the blame, we pretend that aspect of our conduct that wanted to provoke the damage was, in fact, not part of us, in a way to avoid the responsibility. But this is a lie, and Hulk knows it. 

When Hulk confronts the apparently poor Tommy about the murder of the little Sandra, the guy says "No. I didn't--didn't want--". But Hulk now is able to see through the veil used by people to cover their dark self and tells him what he sees behind it: the heavy truth the poor Tommy is unable to process. He wanted to kill the counterman of the gas station, he wanted to kill Bruce, and he wanted to kill Sandra; he, no one else, decided to pull the trigger and even it felt good to a degree. But it happens that Tommy is not just a killer, he's also a father that was looking for a way to give a good life to his family, to his little daughter; he -Tommy says- just committed a mistake in the process. Seeing this, how he killed three people, but at the same time is a "good" father, he says to the Hulk "I'm not a bad guy. Am I?" "What do you think?" Hulk replies.

The issue ends with the very same question. Bruce Banner, in front of the mirror of a bathroom, asks himself if he's a bad person. "What do you think?" he asks, and all he sees in the mirror is his own dark side, the part of himself he's afraid to confront, the aspect of himself he doesn't want to see, all he sees in the mirror is himself, is the Hulk. Considering the duality of the human being, what we should take into account to say if someone is a good person or not? What has more weight? What defines us? The bright, visible, analytical side of the psyche, or the dark, repressed, reactive one? In the case of Bruce Banner, whose duality is even accentuated physically, he has saved Earth countless times, but he has caused massive destruction many times too. Bruce Banner is not more the hyper-intelligent scientist than the green giant fueled by rage that despises humanity. Bruce Banner and the Hulk are the same, just two aspects of the same person. And from the fact that Bruce and the Hulk are the same comes the classic question that has accompanied the character since the first Hulk comic and gives name to this first chapter, the one that says: "IS HE MAN OR MONSTER? OR IS HE BOTH?"

This is something true about humanity. We are both the person who lies to our mothers and the person who feels bad afterward. We are both the person who wants to be more productive and the person who decides not to because of whatever reason, too. And there are many more examples, some a lot more concerning.

And now I ask you, what do you think? Not regarding Tommy or Bruce, but about us in general. We're not bad guys. Are we? What do you think?

Why am I doing this?

 "Why would I write a blog?" was the first question that came to my mind when my father told me, a few months ago by now, I should start writing a blog. I guess he saw my comments on books, comics, series, movies, and others on Twitter and thought they had some quality or value, or that they were interesting. Could it be? Not sure, but to me, those tweets are just simple expressions of my thoughts about things I like, dislike or that interests me for some reason; usually,  they are not even deep reviews with a coherent structure in mind, just flash opinions that were posted almost as fast as appeared in my head (which has lead to typos sometimes, I have to say) that most of the time practically doesn't receive any feedback (I have not too many followers). So I never had the idea that those opinions were interesting enough to start a blog. But it happens not all things are about if it's interesting. 
I'm a writer, I'm also a literature and linguistics student. I find art in all its forms as a worthy candidate for the best invention of humanity, or at least it's top ten on the list. It's the purest form of communication and it's a beautiful process that gives let's say peace and enjoyment to those who create it and to those who receive it. And to see how important art is to humanity, it is necessary to point out that it has been cultivated and admired not for centuries, but for millennia. There's a specifical reason for that, why art is almost as old as humanity itself and why it has endured all these countless years with us. It's about the need of the human being to communicate, to express themselves in all the ways possible, and doing it aesthetically has stood out due to the particular way the message is composed, sent, and received, and the effect it has in both the sender and the receiver. 
And that's about this blog is, about my need for self-expression and communication. About sharing my views on things, mostly art, but there could be other topics too. I don't guarantee things won't get political at some point! I also plan to post here some of my stories and essays. To summarize, I just want to express myself at the same time I write, my biggest passion, and if someone finds something interesting or nice, that would make me really glad.