I read Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings by Alberro and Stimson (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009), and I found the discussion of the art institution quite interesting. Alberro raised issues regarding the collections in the museum, his discussion centered around who determines what is collected, and how their collections are amassed. I don’t think art has to be in a gallery to be considered art, although it needs to be placed within the context of art somehow. Even by an artist saying it is art, or thinking of it as art, I think that is enough. The art institution seems to be a way (maybe an outdated way) to achieve a sense of broad appeal, to house the art, to spread the word, to reach more people. But maybe art isn’t as easily definable as it once was.

I often find myself walking around on household clean-up night in my suburb, where there are old mattresses and bits of furniture out on the street. The junk always seems to take on some bizarre sculptural form. I always come back to the same question, “is it art?” Taken out of the context of an art institution, and placed into the everyday- classifiable as “trash”- I have come to the conclusion that art is determined by the audience. Just like the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, so is art determined by the beholder.