In the work of Nicolas Crocetti, art exists not as an act of service, but as an assertion—a moment of clarity in a world clouded by excess. Rejecting superficiality, Crocetti engages in a practice that is rigorous, deliberate, and unapologetically resistant to easy consumption. Every piece is a dialogue, but one that does not pander. Instead, it challenges, provokes, and demands engagement on its own terms. Through a sharp critical lens, Crocetti interrogates the structures that shape artistic value—social, monetary, and intellectual—while refusing to be defined by them. Here, art is not passive. It is an act of defiance, a tool for dismantling illusions, and a space where real discourse can still exist.

✧✧✧

Is art created for the artist, the audience, or somewhere in between? 

Art is a dialogue, but one conducted on my terms. I create to express something, and at the end of the process, the audience is invited to witness and participate. There is a sense of mutual exchange, an essential back-and-forth. It's not about pleasing the audience — I don't do decorative art — but about engaging them on a deeper, more challenging level. 

In a world flooded with imagery, what responsibility do artists have to stand out and say something authentic?

I am aware of the contemporary social landscape that is characterized by this constant bombardment of news, imagery, trends, and nonsense noise. This overwhelming saturation is a symptom of their inability to discern—a simple reflection of the flatness and superficiality endemic of those within that sphere. “Responsibility” implies a debt. I owe nothing. I don't need to stand out, I am already outside this circus, first and foremost as an individual. 

Has social media democratized art or diluted its value? How do you feel platforms like Instagram influence modern creativity?

Diluted and devalued. It’s really naive to think that has democratized art. The constant stream of images, the endless scroll, has reduced art to a commodity, something to be consumed quickly and discarded just as fast. Instagram is a meticulously curated echo chamber where novelty trumps nuance, and fleeting trends eclipse lasting impact. As of today, with the current algorithm, even people who deliberately decided to follow do not have full coverage of the content shared. Modern creativity? Shaped by algorithms that reward instant gratification and visual clichés. It's a vast ocean of images, where true artistic discourse drowns in a sea of shallow aesthetics and the desperate performance of online validation. We use it, we navigate it, but we must never mistake the digital aquarium for the ocean of real artistic depth. 

Do you think the boundaries of what can be called "art" are being stretched too far, or is this evolution necessary?

True art is a constant state of flux, a perpetual challenge to established norms. Should be a perpetual act of transgression, a joyous dismantling of aesthetic and common prisons. I do agree with all that, the problem arises when everything is defined as art. If everything is art, nothing is art. You need an opposite, a contrary, to define something – this is a concept that  should be quite obvious. So, yes, I think we have gone too far to some extent. I'm not here to define what is art and what is not, for me, it is pretty obvious. If you are confused, try to answer this simple question: what kind of art truly matters to you, and why? 

How do you think art should be valued—emotionally, socially, or monetarily? Is there ever an objective measure?

Van Gogh never sold anything in his life, despite that, it is objectively evident that his practice has been more valuable to art history than multi-millionaire “artists” like Alec Monopoly and such. Am I wrong? Maybe not. Value is a fluid concept, a social construct. The market assigns a price, the heart a resonance. Neither is objective. Perhaps they shouldn't even be. There isn't a correct answer. For me art transcends these metrics, it is a force that reshapes perception, a catalyst for thought, a moment of contemplation. A good compromise could be a balanced situation between all those elements. 

How do you approach criticism, whether from peers, critics, or audiences?

Criticism is data. I analyze it and extract the information from the noise. Empty praise is a sedative; insightful critique is a stimulant. Peers often offer technical acumen, critics provide contextual framing, and audiences reveal visceral impact. But ultimately, the artist must be their own severest critic, using external voices as data points, not dictates. I do not seek validation, but an understanding of how my work is received. 

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly infiltrating creative fields. Do you see artificial intelligence as a threat, a tool, or a collaborator in the art world? 

As we speak right now, AI is a sophisticated parrot, a tool for generating replicas of something existing, or can mimic styles and themes. It lacks the essential ingredients: the human capacity for genuine transgression, intuition, and perception. It's a mirror, reflecting the shallowness of algorithmic creativity, which can be potentially a tool for mundane tasks, for accelerating the production of aesthetically inert decoration for homes of people of questionable taste. 

What kind of legacy do you hope to leave in the art world?

Legacy is a retrospective concern. My focus is on the present, on the act of creation itself. If my work provokes a visceral feeling, sparks a question, a shift in perception, a moment of genuine contemplation, or a disruption of comfortable assumptions, then I have achieved my purpose, even if momentarily, that is sufficient. I want my art to exist in the active present, in the moment of engagement, I don't care about having a legacy when I'm gone, that sounds more like a vanity project. 

Is there a piece of art you’ve created that now feels entirely different to you with the passage of time?

No, I don't think so. Any works I decided to exhibit distances or completely alienate themselves from the concepts, themes, and/or my poetics research. Time and perspective provide a new lens for compounding more meanings. If a piece feels 'entirely different,' there was a problem at the origin. Art should ripen and gain resonance, not obsolescence and rotting. 

Can you take us through the evolution of an artwork, from that first spark of inspiration to the finished piece?

The initial impulse, the spark, is a mere fragment that I'll be sure to take note of. It does not necessarily mean that all ideas are then developed or used as starting points. This is followed by a detailed study of the concept on which the project is based especially, as is almost always the case if it needs specific information related to a particular field. My multidisciplinary approach is not a stylistic choice, but a strategic necessity. I select the medium that best serves the concept and finally, the creative phase begins.

✦ ✦ ✦

In an era where art is often reduced to content, Crocetti stands apart, refusing to dilute the purpose of creation for fleeting visibility. The art does not seek validation, nor does it conform to expectation—it exists as a challenge, a rupture in the cycle of mindless consumption. If it disrupts, if it forces a shift, if it lingers beyond the instant—then it has done its work.