A text about Pedro Portugal ought to be compiled of a mound of quotations without knowing their author. I was not in a position to do that. I was not even succeed in quoting anybody else but himself.

While writing I have started to look at what can be said or has already been said about those he copies (or quotes). I do not know whether his work is dark... I presume not. It is severe, well executed, and with a certain sense of humor which sometimes muses and and makes space for a perplexity. I am one of the perplexed.

What is it, in the end, he wants to say with these works? To quote?

That's obvious!

During a debate he gave guidelines so we would understand him: "I think that this thing about quoting is not new, there is even a impasse. Every body who has a lot of books can see that the history of art has always consisted of copying one another", and still more clear that: "the only historical difference is that today quoting is quicker".

Not a trace of intellectualistic illusionism, of peculiar "theories" which are today the shelter of the artist whose works, materially speaking, have very little to say.

To Pedro Portugal there are no real artistic problems, and if they do exist he is very little interested on them. As a typical nihilist he organizes his activity as is means of living. Whether a work serves to decorate a house now (and the owner is proud of it), fills a room in a museum, takes up a wall in a company office or anithing else, it is all the same to him.

One always lapses into decoration, either there is something to fill or something to look at. Even the works of art which are only temporary or which have the character of a political intervention are ultimately there for somebody's enjoyment, whether it is the small microworld of people, or those who overestimate the importance of artistic practices, or the mass of almost indifferent people who squint at works of art.

If the works of this artist strictly feed themselves on that which is art, that is the pure coincidence. The esoteric symbols of the cult of art with which his works are loaded ougth not to bee confused with the devotion to a goddess, but almost as a difference of opinion.

He seems to have te antidote for the esotericism of the artistic world; in parodying common eloquence he wants to create "an art which is not only for the few but for everybody", and he ask the other artists (and himself) what one does "more and better". And what will be better? Best in that which is most effective is that which has already proved its effectivness, and those are the works of art which form part of our everyday vocabulary those stamped on our memory.

The best is also what pleases most people while watching, the shapes which best reflect the worries of the great artists of this century (the "tops", transitory or not). It is not a simple recognition of "who's on that painting" Portugal wants to present us here. No. He wants to go much further and begs us to accept is idea of what those signals convey, the respective artists and their issue.

Is intention is not so much to copy no matter what, but to bring together a series of artists, to let them exist together as if they were drinking tea and chatting peacefully. A flower of Warthol, a rabbit of Beuys or a crack of Fontana would in this case be symbols with which the quoted artist would inevitably be present. Pedro Portugal seems to work in a group, however divergent their language may be. The "difficulty" lies in the production of the insertion of divergences.

Besides this, there are the parodies on the world of television quizzes. No that he is ardent television viewer, but because he believes that there are similarities between these contests and the little world of artists, and that art can only benefit from this kind of thing. "Who is who" can turn out to be very useful faced with a "star" candidate.

The knowledge of anecdotal facts about artists and their works can contribute to the integration of a layman to the commonplaces. To start with the conversations which are developed between artists and the fierce followers.

To end with, I turn to a fable by Pedro Portugal.

Imagine somebody who does not know who Duchamp, Beuys or Koons are, and he has a painting by Pedro Portugal in front of him. He will not recognize anything in this painting which will remind him of art: to this observer, there is no parody nor quotation. Therefore, the work seems to be completely original.

Let us imagine that he becomes acquainted with the "original" material later on. He will feel disappointed. Will the works by Pedro Portugal be a fraud? Or will these works not be definitely associated with the initial experience of Pedro Portugal?