different thought

i think that the certain degrees of relational aesthetics that i stongly agree with and stongly disagree with. I think your arty party world is a bit trivial, or making points about gallery space or museums. Fair enough if u want make those points, changing the spaces and what not, but i suppose it depends whether or not you seek to change or alter society and in what ways. if refering to the paradigms on this topic from Kwons sitings of public art, 'art in public spaces' model is good and well as you have a change in context away from the gallery and the museum, but after a time in just becomes another ornament in the grand architectural contructs of our cities... so to a degree, these works say only a very little... like the work in redfern... it is there, it exists.. hoorah...
then you have 'art as public spaces', which i think is a better move. now have forms that can directly influence a person or people, it can affect them, change moods, alter perceptions.. but i think art for social realtions in the political and socio-economic arena, 'art in the public interest model' makes for a more valid point discouse. Like the CAE or IAA, these collectives who make works which tackle the issues of our time, like biodefense and public censorship. here you have artists, often anonymous, who challenge almost to the extent of activism, the status quo of our context and to create change amongst the population as a whole... not merely a tourist or observer who notices nice sculptures here and there....