(Spanish) [The art of] ceramics has various spaces. I would say that ceramics is as much about use as it is about space, we might [even] say aesthetics and even more ritual. I also thought about [ceramics] as function because I began [my career] as a utilitarian ceramist; I began to spin [clay], to make objects of use on a very practical potter’s wheel, and with the decision to put aside music and philosophy, I was finally able to focus on pretty ceramic objects, not so much decorative but rather useful [objects], in order for people to make use of them and to preserve them in their homes. But besides [this,] I thought that I might be able to finance my musical studies, can you imagine? What happened to this financing? Even now I am unable to pay for voice classes, [for] singing classes with a good teacher! How one forgets, as well as in that parable, one searches and one forgets at times what one was looking for. But I am thinking that the two spaces are very important, [but also] very difficult for them to also be compatible, more than in [the space] that produces, in the reception. I would say that people have to think [about the object as] having a function, the object has less value than an object that does not have a function, except that it has a space of isolated layout, visual [in nature], almost like an aesthetic symbol of something, don’t you agree? I would say that the two spaces have important value; I would love for all ceramists or artists who make ceramics to have this possibility of understanding that one needs to travel between the two spaces and to pass through those two dimensions in order to better understand the art of ceramics.