Developing the theme of duality has been almost a necessary step. In the moment we sat in front of each other, the specularity implicit in the concept of "duo" emerged full force.The fact is that there is a particular interaction that occurs between two contrasting elements, and his simplicity and charm are immediately perceptible. Of course this is not a purely quantitative process, because in this kind of activity the result never emerges from the simple sum of its parts.
To fully understand the phenomenon I think we must move away from the idea of two separate entities operating; on the contrary we have to consider creation as a process always entirely "unique", as an act in which the actor loses his identity in favor of the action. Just forgetting about the duplicity you can fully understand it, because only in this way you can finally perceive it not as a union but as a "division". The act is always one and is itself always already complete, but you can give it one, two or infinite faces. However, none of these choices leads with certainty to a better result.
Each of the actors / authors still in their uniqueness, while the creative process breaks up and this happens with greater force between two poles. In a dual relationship any comparison is a contrast and the directions are always opposite, for there can’t be a third possibility. The duo released the great strength of the excluded middle, the one who always opposes and never reconciles, the simplest and most effective form of doubt and - however - the only clarity, because in it lies the very first principle of choice.
