” When is the project working? What are its intentions? Who is the intended audience? When is an artist simply using ideas of social work in order to progress her career?”

(I love how its HER career, Im going to assume the author meant to say “his or her career”)

This I believe is the main sort of idea that was discussed through the reading. The readings spoke a lot as to different types of “life” events that should be considered as art. Ranging from making a political statement (middle eastern people crossing a sidewalk on their hands and knees) to making a new statement (an artist cooking pho as a museum exhibit). It was based of a basic idea that art should stop being just a thing, but being life itself. This is a great and wonderful way to look at it.

However, as with many things in life that are more abstract and as open to interpretation as art, it can be very difficult to say what is art and what isnt art in this viewpoint. This is something I pay close attention to not only because my field of study always has me thinking about proper definitions for something (and I realize what a challenge coming up with detailed and outlined definitions can be), but also because there has to be some sort of guideline or value added to art in order for it to be considered art? Because if at some point, anything you do in life can be interpreted as art, then I make some wonderful art every morning in the bathroom shortly after waking up.

When I was reading about form, I thought, “ok, great, this is where theyre going to reel it all in and define what living in form is and what constitutes as art”. What I discovered was the quote above and the reading diving more into that. It was a way of answering a question with more questions but not clearly defining what “life” or art really are.

I mean, who has the right to define what art is? Appointed by who? Under what credentials? and if such a body of Art Decision Making, then I know someone is going to break the rules with more art and THAT itself will be art. Really, its the wild west out there. When is something disguised as art in order to push political policies? When is someone hiding behind a message for personal gain? And when is someone ‘selling us’ a meaning on something that clearly has no real form and no real effort on it.

Could I make the definitions? No. Because of my previous point. However, I think the questions I quoted above is a good beginning. Maybe Art shouldnt be within boundaries or definitions, but rather it should answer certain questions about it and thereby adding more value/worth to itself. Then how do we protect ourselves from the gifted B.S’er?