Often, the less understood you are, the more valid what you think is. They will call you crazy, but I think being crazy is simply having the courage to be yourself. And yes, people call you “crazy” when you rebel against something, and we are taught this from an early age, that rebelling is wrong. Actually I believe rebellion is the only way out of being who we really are. Because each one taken individually has its own unique value, but we tend to homologate, they treat us and we treat each other as if we were and should all be the same. We are so enslaved to this system that we don’t even notice it anymore and we believe we are free, we believe that what we have in mind is our true personality, while we are still dominated by society and all its conventions. If you think about it, the most important people in past and contemporary history who have brought about significant changes in the world, who have brought about improvements, have been rebels. We could all be rebels, free ourselves from the chains that bind us. Yet we persist in making choices dictated by rationality, by schemes, and not by instinct. We say we are independent, but we continue to choose on the basis of what we have been taught, not on the basis of what we are, what we feel. So ultimately, until you understand your nature, you won’t be independent, but quite the opposite. This is what I think … In short, quoting Bukowski: “When everyone is equal, everyone is nobody”.


In the human species there is a phenomenon that has no equal in nature. Two male individuals of the same species, with the same large bipedal mammalian body, with the same type of brain, can become one St. Francis of Assisi and the other Adolf Hitler. How can we explain such a radical difference in behavior? In two ways, which are not mutually exclusive.
The first hypothesis is that in Homo sapiens the instincts have lost much of their cogency: they no longer command us like puppets. With the same biology, the choices an individual makes are dictated much more by personal history, by experiences and traumas, by family and social influences, or simply by the uniqueness of the individual. Our evolutionary heritage has weakened: it makes us capable of one behavior and its opposite, but then which of the two we choose depends on a cultural judgment of what we think is good or bad.
The second hypothesis is that our own evolutionary history is ambivalent and therefore it is useless to ask ourselves whether we are good or bad “by nature”. Perhaps we are both, a variable mix of good and evil. Recent scientific data confirms that our mind has evolved by dealing with social relationships in small groups, each in conflict with other groups. The result is that we are cooperative and good with those we recognize as belonging to our “we”, while we tend towards aggression towards those who seem to us “other than us”. But the experiments also show that education can make a difference, teaching us to consider ever larger communities of solidarity, to the point of including the entire human species in the “we”, as the disregarded Universal Declaration of Rights of 1948 says.
Recognizing how bad you are makes you more capable of living with serenity. The “bad guys” are those who come without real suffering and a demand for treatment. People who seem (or are) insensitive to the suffering they cause in others. They are asked to treat them to find a medical justification for behaviors that do not need justification. Behaviors aimed at the instinctual satisfaction of the individual without paying attention to the people to whom they cause suffering. This is clinically unamendable evil because it does not belong to a true definition of disease. This is a terrifying evil.


Louise Bourgeois – Femme Maison, 1946-47

Feminism’s most powerful tool for transmitting the message was surely art, in all its forms. It is true that women were present in art history both as artists and models, but only the latter is widespread and offers plenty of information, while the former barely stands ground. It was the men who painted women, often objectifying and misinterpreting them, and the topic seems to be more than recurrent.

While there’s no doubt some of them are world’s greatest artworks, it was time to bring to light also the achievements of women in the field, and to do it now.

%d bloggers like this: