LLEI D'ART 13

the lowand shrinkingnumber of readers. ‘Reading is not fodder, it is a stimulant’ wroteAzorín ( With theprizes of the Cervantists ,1948). There is ageneral lackof intellectual curiosity. TheCIS barometer in January 2015 says that 50%of peopledon’t buy books, 35%havenever read, 42%affirm that readingneither interests not pleases them, and64.3%choose their topic independentlyof theauthor or reviews, and15%didn’t know that e-books existed. A race that does not read isgivingupon their freedom. If we donot readandwritewecannot pindownour concepts. The writtenwordexcites the imagination, develops it, generates thinking. Thedailypress andnewspaper publications are fundamental for a life in society. Agoodbackgroundarticle is already somethingof a rarity, whilst anyold stupidityon YouTubeearns thousandsormillionsof visits. Imagery has not beaten theword, but it has imposed its stupidity, frivolity and mental poverty. If the thought process is not provoked it does not act or grow. It isgood thing that cultureand spectacle grow, and toconfuse the two is a seriousmistake. Aman’s freedom isdeterminedby his thought processes, his attitude, his lifestyle, his search for goodandbeauty, his capacity to respect andbe respected. III The false returnof beauty. This isprobably thewordwith most longevity inhumanities, inaman’s life, aswell asbeing theword that stirs upmost rejectionamongst the trendies that see themselves as thecrèmede lacrème. To thepoint that the JuanBordes’s reply toarchitect CampoBaeza’sopening speechat theSanFernandoRoyal Academyof FineArt. Under theheading ‘Seekingbeauty, dauntlessly’ Campo Baezawrites: ‘Imust confess thatwhat I truly seek, withall my efforts, withallmy soul, dauntlessly, isbeauty’. Thenhe runs through themeaningof beauty fromPlato tohismasters Oiza, Sota, Carvajal, Fisac, and specifies: ‘Beauty is something profound, preciseand specific that shakes the foundations ofman,makes time stop in its tracks, andmakes theartwork remain in timeand inman’smemory. Beauty is not something superficial, nor lazy, nor vague.’ Aheadstrong, clichéand disappointing speech forwhat CampoBaeza represents and theexpectations created. Not that JuanBordes’s replywas exemplary either, who went on tounpick thearchitect’s arguments, leaningof Burke’s treatise toconclude that ‘perfection is not thecause of beauty’, thus usingBurkeas if hewere thepinnacleof thought, andcountingon fascinationbeforebeauty. Another performance: thegivingof theVelázquezPrize to Jaume PlensaonawindyNovembermorningat theCloister of the Hieronymites. An icy atmosphere. The sculptor took it inhis stride: ‘Aboveall, thegreat responsibilityof re-introducing beauty into theday-to-day’. Given the froideur , thewords of theQueenand theexcessive treatiseof [Culture]Minister Wert, playing the roleof art critic, historianandanthologist byquotingRimbaud - not especially context-appropriate - fitted thebill perfectly. Beautywas spokenof again. Although Plensa’s scarcewordsgave littleaway, theyweremuchmore appropriate thanother people’s contributions. TheVelázquezPrize! Velázquez!! shouldhavenon-thematic, yet quality criteria, for now its recognition ismoreaburden thanaguarantee. Andon seriousness, if it is joined toan exhibition, whydon’t theydo the samewithevery exhibition? It is completely at themercyof those inpower, andwhen the PPorder, nobodydoes andeverythingends uphangingon the first cleverclogs tomakeanappearance. TheSecretary of State for CultureLassallewas alsoat theevent and...what a fiasco! what a ridiculous fiasco! Hewas just there toclap: he saidnothingandhas indeeddonenothing. JaumePlensa spokeabout the ‘need for poetry’, andAlbertoCampoBaeza usedMaríaZambrano’sdefinitionof it ‘words setwith time’, andaffirmed that his architecture sought ‘poeticperfection’. And for YvesBonnefoy, poetry is that ‘particularwayof questioning theworldandexistence’. IV ThePriest and theMandarins. Book title, author: Gregorio Morán. Subtitle: Unofficial History of theWoods of theLiterate. Culture andPolitics inSpain, 1962-1996 , Akal,Madrid2014. As far as I’maware they’reon the3rdprint run! Thebook was commissedbyPlaneta, but, according to theauthor in LaVanguardia , after correcting theproofs theeditor toldhim that if hedidn’t remove the14-pageChapter 33 thebook wouldn’t bepublished. Andof course, what a steal! theauthor refused tobecensuredandAkal havepublished it instead. JesúsAguirre is thepriest and themandarins are: Javier Pradera, Polanco, JuanBenet, Castilladel Pino, PepeHierro, Aranguren, Ridruejo, PanchoPérez, Barral,MatíasCortés, Laín Entralgo, Querejeta, Zubiri, Sopeña,Manuel Sacristán, Cela, Castellet. It is a variedanalysis, writtenwitha knifebetweenhis teeth, wherenooneescapes scot-free. Very very fewpeopleare left alone: DionisoRidruejo, Carmen Iglesias,Manuel Sacristán, Pradera,MartínSantos, Sánchez Ferlosio; Benet, just about… Other peopleareennobled, withnoapparent reason. The book is too longand rather toomany repetitions. It is not a piecewith style, it’s somewhat tiring, sometimes fluidand others reiterativeanduseless. A failureof focus:making Jesús Aguirre ‘themain thread’ of politics andculture for thirty- something years is completely unheardof. Because thisbook wants tobeanessay, it is not anovel. Thedefences and attacksonoccasionare funandonoccasionpathetic. The influenceattributed toMaxAub is nothingbut adesireor a compensation for something. But you should read it, despite theauthor’s score-settling. It haswell-structuredchapterswith rigorous andbrilliant reflections. Thecensuredpages, the reasonwhy the volume hadany interest, aremoregossip thananythingelse, because it omitsmanyof theupstarts that aredemanding the text be revised. All the falangistas of the timearewell spruced-up: Laín Entralgo, Tovar, Torrente, EugenioMontes, SánchezMazas, Aranguren. CelaandCastellet aregivenagood tickingoff. Well, in theend, thebook is funandmakes you smile rather than think. His aversion to thepriest Aguirre is evident, ‘a social-climbing, queeny, academic, hustlingDukeof Alba’. He elevates the littleworldof Santander toa level it doesn’t have, and ismoremeasuredwith the living than thedead. He tiptoes acrossmuddywaters andquotes himself in similarly close publications, non-specific to the topiche is talkingabout. He lacks equanimity and is tooquick to virulence. He is lacking indepthandexcessive in flippant comments. But everything 32