Monologue

Although communicative dialogued artworks seem pretty good in theory (just like communism and decisions made after 6 glasses of wine) I cannot help but wear my Negative Nancy hat and question the success of certain artistic collaborations. As an aside, I was doing further research on this topic (okay, I was just googling, but I feel I should wear my 'good effort' hat now) and written in bold black text about art based dialogues was that no artistic experience is required for these processes (it was not italicised but is stresses their point, right?) . I am not going into this argument again as I am pretty sure we have had this discussion for the past three years.

Back to questioning collaborative/communicative processes [*removes good effort hat*]. The idea of instigating conversation between an artist and a group (be it marginalised, oppressed etcetera) seems wonderful-- I like the idea of positive change and people working together to make something in the end. BUT (bold capitals are effective aren't they) I cannot help wonder if it works, does it really wipe out stratification? (think I just made up a word). At the end of the dialogue and conversation and after all this wonderful 'process', does one person speak for all? Does the process really overshadow the result?

I am not sure if I am talking about this weeks topic anymore. Perhaps our government [pending] should try finger-painting or collage together-- I'm sure something positive would come out of an afternoon spent with abstraction and decoupage.