Klauser, Lyotard, The Dali Lama and that minimalist guy.

(Sorry... A hugh rant coming, followed by a few questions)

Art and its discourse.

Art of this century and especially contemporary art, seem to be bound to the art discourse. If an artist makes a work that does not successfully comply with the conceptual discourse then the work is deemed common, mainstream, crafty. 

Wochen Klauser's art practice seems to often question the institutions of art and its discourse. It seems that the discourse is bound or surrounded by language. English white critical theorist language. In my opinion, art  is  should not bound by language. It ascends the boarders of  languages from different countries and cultures.  Art is a form of expression, just as language is a form of expression. Two different forms of expression. How can a visual expression be tied to a verbal expression?

Who says that art cannot be an object, conceptual, decorative, bronze, ugly, pretty, ready-made, crafty, abstract, immersive, political, non political, relational or collective.

Who are we to say, just because we are educated in a discourse that is created by -who? Do 'they' say its art? The galleries? The theorists? 

We are being conditioned to like whatever we see in these galleries. Believe in the artists gallery history and artist profile so that this discourse bring economy and value into the art world. 

So going back to Tirivaneja's work with relational aesthetics, why does he need to be accountable to the general public? Also the situation with minimalist sculpture in a public square (Judd or Smithson or who ever that minimalist was). Why does 'that person' need to represent the entire community? Or the general consensus of society, which Lyotard in his essay Terror On The Run, points out that consensus means majority and majority means that someone will always be left out, meaning that the 'Other' or the alien will always be present in our society where consensus exists.

Though Im sure the dali lama didn't get to his position just by being spiritual and meditatingby a stream the whole time. He probably studied law, many languages, economics, world trade, philosophy and different religions as well as Buddhism. So that one can truely subvert by knowing, inside and out, the discourse in which they are rejecting. Which is why Klauser is cool. (what where am I going with this?) (sorry)