The stuff we were talking about but not?

So we've looked at a bunch of different types of relational art. Because of the diversity it seems like there are lots of (relational) mediums involved than just 'relational art' in general. Situation, Conversation, Participation and some others all seem to kind of be mediums used.

Someone like Rikrit Tirajaniva creates situations, which give birth to conversations. Some people may say it's the situation that is 'the artwork' and other would say it is the conversation (it seems to be common thought on relational art seems to see this as the important part). I guess it could be both that doesn't really matter to me.

The group (whose name escapes me) we were talking about on Monday also create situations which give birth to conversations. Only their conversations usually lead to action that produces social change. Is there a difference in the mediums of productive and unproductive conversation? Is Tiravanija's work fundamentally different to the group's because the conversations he facilitates aren't of consequence to broader social issues?

As with most questions regarding if things to do with art are different my answer is "I don't really care, it is what it is." Despite this there is a reason I'm actually writing about this... It's hard to describe but there's a reason I wrote all this, something I care about in all that... It'll come to me... When it does I'll post it...