The quote by Foucault at the beginning of the essay really does a great job at capturing what is so striking about all of the sub-genres that fall under “living as form”; why haven’t people done it before? Seeing oneself and one’s surroundings as a point through which art can be created and translated into is in my opinion an obvious path for one to take. The artist is more than a creator of objects, they are themselves an object with the incredible ability to create. Just recognizing that we as humans have the ability to create should generate in one’s mind a great force of creative empowerment. To be able to be socially aware, to take action in society, to create projects like the Palas for Pistolas projects that have substantial change in the world, evoke emotion, and change one’s surroundings is absolutely amazing. It does not take genius, just a bit of perseverance and energy and the real golden nugget in all of this; the acknowledgement of the fact that all it takes is work to change the world and the subsequent belief in oneself so as to enable one to act upon it. I think that this object oriented, individualistic, separated and aloof art world that still does exist, even if these movements have tried to change that, is dangerous and creates a culture of worth based on object, not only in the world of the gallery but in ones own life. How many books you can reference, how much art you own, where you got your degree, what car you drive, what clothes you wear, when considered to be the aspects of the being that prove its worth they are quite sad and the absolute opposite of what I believe art should be about. It removes the ability to have a dialogue because it posits through its existence that there is an objective good. It removes individualism because people with different material existences are no longer recognized. Worst of all it removes the most important thing about art; the ability to take any path to solving, resolving, or causing problems in this chaotic world we live in even if that creation is an object. The insertion of an object into society that has come about through ones true creative pursuit and not a manifestation of being “objectively” validated by money, the location of its show (this in and of itself is a completely systematic and box like construct that limits the artist in so many ways, all of which the artists in the article are rebelling against in genius ways but again still is a large part of the “art world” because of mankind’s desire to structure itself) is as important as any of these social action “art moments”. The insertion of an object can manifest thinking and action in a completely equal, identical or different, way. The different way interests me more because I think it eludes to part of the reason art is so important. Many of these social oriented projects are physical actions on the structure or actual physical landscape of mankind, they act and then open discussion, object art in the other sense opens discussion and then can prompt one to act. The call to action of that art though I feel is much less predictable and thus more interesting. While, perhaps, the object like a painting or public sculpture, obviously a limited scope but just an example, may not change social structures, it has the power to have effects like inspiring more people to create art, to look at the world differently, to see colors in a new way, to discuss things, all relevant to the concepts of the situationists and all social art; it fundamentally takes people to create. The discussion that is created by undefined art objects that could perhaps call one to action is important because it shows that arts primary function, as do the social art moments do in another way, is to be an ongoing dialogue with our collective, partial, and individual  consciousnesses about our humanity.