The Radicant- p141-175

On page 152, Bourriaud touches on the specificity of labor/abilities and how this has created a panic in us, as we approach incompetence.

Together we may be "achieving" but alone, are we becoming powerless? The point I found interesting from this paragraph was the fact that he acknowledged personal and psychological detriment caused by the inability to make, or to complete a task. The lack of control can be unnerving, and is cited in many mental illnesses, like eating disorders.

Throughout this text, and many, many others, Duchamp is cited as an influence to many artists and and art movements. I was aware of his pieces before this class, and of their intention, but I did not know that his ideas were viewed as being so pivotal that his name cannot not be mentioned. It made me wonder if any artist will be able to have this big of an impact on the definition of art again, or are we accustomed now to question all conventions to a point where nothing is truly revolutionary?

On page 158, Bourriaud states, "Artists who are working today with an intuitive idea of culture as toolbox know that art has neither an origin nor a metaphysical destination, and that the work they exhibit is never a creation but an instance of postproduction."

Now, I understand the point that he is trying to make, but it seems a bit extreme to me. The way he puts it, it seems like he is unwilling to give the artist credit for any original thought. He is specifically referring to artists who work with culture as their source, but it still seems overly simplistic to me.

On page 160, Bourriaud discusses an emerging principle/method is recent artists: the capacity to navigate information is in the process of becoming the dominant faculty for the intellectual of the artist. I found this point very interesting- the difference between comprehension of the vast information we have access to and the ability to organize and assimilate it. This is a new type of knowledge.

I was not sure what Bourriaud's stance was on the object at the end of this book. Throughout the book he champions the temporal, and in the last section he talks about the defetishization of art. But he also says that, "The intentionally transitory character of the artwork is not asserted by its form, which may be durable and solid, and forty years after Conceptual art is is no longer a matter of asserting the immateriality of the work or art." Does this mean that a work can be a physical object, as long as that is not the focus?