Orbaneja reproach of a philosophical commentary on a text of Don Quixote that reads: "Now I say, 'Don Quixote has been wise not the author of my history, but some ignorant chatterer, who cautiously and without speech was to write, leave it out, that as he did Orbaneja, the painter of Ubeda, which asked him what he was painting, answered: "What goeth." Maybe paint a rooster, so bad luck like that, that it was necessary to write gothic letters with him, "This is cock." And this must be my story, that comment will need to understand "(Don Quixote, II, 3). The Orbaneja are the assumptions that make it absolutely contemporary artists throughout the artistic process to the public interpretation: since they are unable to paint a rooster, it is necessary that the "comment", interpretation and theory come to fill a gap that artists were unable to cover. They tend to defend the need to bring art to life (which for them is to confuse the art and everyday life), so that in his art include absolutely everything, regardless of its properties: everything is the work of art. And when you criticize them something, they go to their intentions and their desire sincere to themselves to justify their wake. Orbaneja But, at bottom, also seek to establish a new frontier for art: it is your thing, what others, to be seen. Once you enter the exclusive territory of art is to stay there anyway. And that's where the help comes from the interpretation that if it is constitutive of the artistic phenomenon, in the hands of Orbaneja hiperteorización reaches levels of abuse, which completely forgets the formal element of the artwork and it is reduced to a mere vehicle for communication of ethical ideas, political or metaphysical preferably (and allegedly) offending, where aesthetics has no place (precisely because it feared). The Orbaneja justify their art always against something, as if the only and necessary function of art was the protest, and almost always have an eye on the art market, consecrated the new hall and not for eternity, but for the next months. Sometimes Orbaneja are difficult to identify because it gives the impression that handle symbols, pieces that are unknown to ordinary mortals, as does that of the individual Searle's Chinese room, which appears to understand Chinese, but in reality does nothing but handle Chinese characters do not understand the instructions in their own language it does. And actually your response (read the work of Orbaneja) is absolutely incomprehensible for himself. But there is always a Chinese may think you are in the room knows what he does (ie, fluent in Mandarin). The Chinese would be the critical work of Orbaneja. Obviously, the error is in thinking that the syntax is sufficient for semantics. The Orbaneja impose its laws and theories (or rather, those of others) about the things we call art, so no need to look at work or attend performances of Orbaneja: just read what the critics and theorists say about them, which he definitively the territory of aesthetics (because originally the term is related to sensory experience). In the history of art to connect with the beauty it has been sufficiently strong to eternal dogma not consider a defense of the unbinding of art and beauty that advocate the Orbaneja. But can we speak of beauty, and beauty in art, at this stage of mess? Of course, without doubt, that pendulum is history, has to re-enter the force in the territory of art. Precisely for this reason it is to decry Orbaneja, to recover what was stolen, or rather through the barriers of impossibilities hiperteorizadas fictitious and they have built and defended tooth and nail. There is a human longing for beauty that only art can fill, because it is the area of human action itself of beauty, and beauty is important and perhaps, as Plato said, it is difficult, so that by pulling Orbaneja more beaten paths and safer, but less human, of banality. If reproach of Orbaneja can shed some light on this whole world, there will be more than fulfilled its function._x000D_