The rivalry between Weber’s morality and Durkheim’s Anomie strongly marked the early years of the last century, transforming them into a kind of intimate enemies. On the one hand, Weber’s conservatism proposed that idea of ​​the need for a shared morality that would cement society. In simple words, the fact of knowing my neighbor, sharing his beliefs, his problems, his benefits or even his defects, was somehow essential for a society to work together. Going against that was seed to destroy the social knitting. This view clearly prioritizes empathy, the fact that knowing the story of the other made me not be indifferent to their sorrow in the face of a misfortune, made us work together for the common good or help each other in moments of weakness.
We can imagine how naive Durkheim must have found this posture. For his part, the author proposed something diametrically opposite. For him, something shared was not necessary at all, worse still, what held individuals together in modern society were issues such as the extreme specificity of the division of labor. From his point of view, “the other” was a complete stranger, what made individuals stay together was not that kind of empathy that emerged among the ancient peoples of the Middle Ages. Because it was impossible to do it, the division of labor had evolved so much that it had transformed the other into a complete stranger, someone alien to my reality. But then you wonder what unites us? Paradoxically, what unites us is that very thing. The division of labor has made the activity of the other so foreign that in order to obtain what I want I need the other. To give a very crude example, we can imagine that if before someone wanted bread that person could have some knowledge that would allow me to make it or obtain it for myself, while in modern society the activities have been divided and specified so much that now the theme of bread is completely alien to him and I can only get to it through that other one who is the only one with the necessary knowledge to provide it to him.

As we said at the beginning, both positions strongly debated their protagonism at the beginning of the last century, trying to impose one on the other, there when the cultural context was marked by the social revolutions of the time. Far from having prevailed over the other, what we can notice over the years is that both have had something to contribute to the contemporary social structure.
As for our project, which ultimately, among other things, tries to be a kind of social experiment that wants to tell us about ourselves. Isn’t it interesting to think of the canvas as that place where it is necessary to meet my neighbors, learn their history and try to build a larger proposal that benefits us all from something shared? and at the same time, isn’t the canvas that place where my neighbor can be someone I don’t know or am interested in knowing, but someone I need if I want to grow and pursue a greater goal? Doesn’t this great work of art show us various facets of a social knitting that can go from a constructivist view where the subject can be dispensed with in order to speak of the subject, to a conservative view where the subjects and their set of shared values ​​cement the social fabric?