When I say here that Art is not Information, and that a body in Art is not Information, I am referring to good information, that is, the correct sense of being informed of an artistic body means, as the Aristotelians already conceived, that being a reality limited by a surface, that has extension, that defines its own space, and that it is a substance, it is not for that reason that it is pure matter nor of mere power, but is "informed by a form" (the Form inhabits it); In other words: the body in Art exists and always appears that way, since this is its condition, penetrated by a form, that is, «in-formed», which is just the opposite of what happens today with what is he understands by "information" that it is simple noise in excess deposited in bodies without form or formation (empty, hollow, without organs... or seen the other way around, deformed organs without a formed body); so that an in-formed body is the opposite of a "body that informs", it is the antithesis of "information about a body", it is the enemy of the amorphous, and therefore, of all lack of Figure, of the dis-figured (that this world remains so drowned in images...).