I wonder why Trevor Paglen, the most outspoken panelists on the not so art market photographies (surveillance, drone aircraft), almost as a performance in silence said nothing during the full second day.

I wonder how this relates to the audience comment about writers having to edit and cull form the mass of words we use everyday to craft their works and now photographers, in its medium’s expanded and banal uses, is perhaps facing a similar formal strategy.

I also wonder how the print on demand version of the symposium will include the Q&A.

Students often struggle as the academic institutions they attend find it easier to take a theoretical stance when teaching and discussing art. Institutions, are also rooted in the past and are heavily invested in “what was” rather than “what will be” which is much harder to predict. The marketplace also functions in the same manner because assigned value is dependent on stability and history. It is hard to make an economic claim for something that doesn’t conform to the current ideological system.

That being said, there is a significant shift in current practice from making work about theory to making work about the human. There is always an opportunity to apply theory to art and there will never be a shortage of theoretical positions surrounding works, but what seems significant is that art about theory is inaccessible (except to the art community), which makes it more valuable to the market. Trending practice is moving in the direction of creating entry points for the spectator, allowing them to feel comfortable with art and feel that they are able to understand it, even if they don’t have a degree in art history. This practice is definitely perceived as a threat to the marketplace but in the end will advance it through increased museum attendance, more artwork being enjoyed and sold and a greater degree of support for art and artists within the larger community.