Jeffrey Basham

Suzanne Lacy response,

There were many aspects to the reading that stuck out greatly to me.  I found her work to be a critical dialogue about structure, audience and the liberation and responsibility of public forum and art.  I found her ideas compelling and the piece reflected that which she hoped to engage.  That is to say, she took a creative observation of discourse, the way art is discussed and almost more importantly -- how art is critiqued.  It is almost as if critique holds back the evolution of the art with which my art becomes relevant.  I think it is important to state, she compares audience, criticism and the evolution of new forms to be derived in structure, medium and how we display the work.  We can criticize the art, but art can arguably always be relevant and created out of and indicative of how we are progressing.  

What struck me most was her discussion on the molding of culture and how criticism can deify art, when indeed it can be reflective of the culture's temperament. Lacy, discusses in many respects that the micro becomes the macro and the macro will try to shape how what is intangible, and audience interaction... we learn to perform and we try to create, co create what may already be predetermined toward being shaped.  Radical thought is often quantified by those who see the activism later and than want to create it.  There will always be people who are not pro "your" art, and know the evocative nature of the work we do, suggests we must see the vision through.  Knowing your audience and know when to push them toward your vision and be willing to fail and fail better.