A common question posed mainly by young people is why we refer more to old photographers, obviously deceased ones, and not as much to contemporary or young ones. The question is logical because they believe, especially the young ones who ask us, that they will communicate better with their contemporaries on the argument that their contemporaneity will speak about things closer to what concerns them. However, this is not valid. In art, there is no old and new; there is no outdated; there is no obsolete. There is something that does not survive, there is something that does not have great duration and strength, there are also things that resurface over the centuries, appreciated more by certain generations, and others that are forgotten forever or for a period. Generally, in art, there is no single truth, neither temporally nor substantially. There is interesting and uninteresting, good and bad, and generally, I would say that what is contemporary is what moves us. It is obvious that something that has lasted for years and has been tested through the judgment of people and art lovers deserves to be mentioned and on which we can base our judgment of today's photography, today's art. We appreciate art because we know the art that has been made until today; otherwise, we wouldn't have a way to judge if something is good, mediocre, or bad. Also, no one talks about something truly new. New ways are found to say more or less the same things that have occupied and occupy people such as death, love, relationships, our place on earth, the need to create, communication, about these things the ancients spoke and so do the contemporaries. The way changes. And it changes, indeed, by making cycles. It's like the word 'revolution' in Latin, which means recycling. There is essentially nothing new. The only new thing that exists is the artist, the photographer behind the camera, who each time shows us the same world we all know through his own eyes. The language that is contemporary, thus more familiar to young people, makes them think that the contemporary photographer speaks more about their own things. This is because they haven't made the effort to truly understand the language of art and through the language of art to perceive the originality of each artist's, each photographer's language. Therefore, I emphasize again, let's enjoy those we already know as great artists. It is obvious that the contemporaries have not passed through the test of time; therefore, we have greater difficulty and greater responsibility to decide whether someone is worthy or not, and it will take us time to produce great photographers from our own generation who will be admired and valued by the next ones. Art does not have time; its time is the whole life of man. And when someone said at the turn of the century that art also died, as at every turn of the century everyone thinks that categories of culture are dying while this is not true, a Greek philosopher, Kostas Axelos, said, if art died, then its death rattle would be longer than its life.