Its the philanthropists, quick...after them.

Why should art be for everyone?
Even art in public spaces is mostly there because corporations have a philanthropy budget (similar to the carbon credit system). Art is intended for everyone, especially the art that corporations commision. Their art is for everyone to know they installed it, to raise their public profile, to show they are addressing the needs of the community. Even politicians are the same (mostly) a public art work commisioned by a governement exists only because it was deemed to be useful and also found a space in the budget of said campaign/fiscal plan. There are exceptions to this of course. I just get so tired and frustrated at the state of public art, scultpures that are so non-descript so as no to offend anyone that at every turn in the city we are confronted with another steel blob or tiled item of colour that makes sense to no one and is certainly not waking us up from our big fat artistic sleep walk. Philantrophic comanies abound but so does nothing art.

We built the Situationist City on psycho-geography and marxism.

The SI certainly had a hand in the grinding cogs of society falling over in France 1968. They had a foothold in the Sorbonne, in the Latin Quarter, where the protesting first began (and where it got most violent), they had an open ear from the proletariat in the factories and they had the douche bag Guy Debord (part of the intelligensia and also the guy who said that the British parliament were cuntish, while parliament was in session no less). This is all well and good, and the uprising (or the pre-revolution) was certainly an exciting thing, it gave people the freedom to question the systemic reasons for the way they live (which, in my opinion, is always a healthy thing). Word of the student's success sent tremors of hope all around the world that lowly students could make a difference and bring about change. From Berkeley to Tokyo students began to revolt (even for the sake of revolting). Also its rumoured that UTS tower (where building commenced in 1969) was designed, in tower form, to prevent large groups of students congregating as a reactionary measure from the academia's unrest worldwide.

So, no doubt that the SI were influential and its good that people began to question whoever was pulling the strings but i think that people have trouble when the boss is on the ropes. Im refering to people getting hurt in this case. Riots and uprisings and anything that causes the concept of TINA to breakdown can be very dangerous to social structures and people. TINA is the concept of There Is No Alternative, it was coined post pre-revolution in France. It refers to the unhinging of individual's moral compasses when routine of normal life is lost explosively. We see it all over, anytime there is a riot or even a protest there are looters, property damagers and violators on both sides of the law.

The SI were playing with righteous fire, which is the most dangerous type. They have high ideals and grand concepts but were not very pragmatic.

So in short I think, question your existance without messing with peeps.

Shit can get real in the riot.

(im not going to proof this, so i apologize if you read it and it was incoherent/dribble/offensive or dumb).

What The Institution Can Do For You!!

Does the art institution gobble up innocent and pure artists and turn them into conformist formula artists clutching at paper and fame? I don't know.

Does the art institution only attract artists that wish to commericialise their art making so that they can get a little green in their pockets? I don't know.

Does something only become an artwork with the institution accepts it as so or deems it to be saleable? Maybe?

Does any of this matter? No.

All art institutions be they commercial, government funded or artist run have a place in the broader artistic community. They all serve a purpose and the status quo would be shifted drastically if one facet of these were to disappear. The art community is self perpetuating. Each of its facets forces the others to adjust through the prejudices each has for the others.
(That's a confusing sentence and if this was an essay that shit would be revised).

It's important for artists to have an awareness of their existence within the framework of the greater artistic community. I think its a big part of maintaining artistic integrity. Not only is it valuable to be able to locate yourself artistically it also helps you locate other works and artists, this is also true of life i think. Be aware of yourself and the framework you are existing in.

Over and out.