Why does art fail to engage imaginations so often?
Are processes too idiosyncratic and codified to be inclusive?
Do people only like to express suscinct affinities?
Does capitalist and oedipal induviduation combined with ever larger and advanced democracies inevitably bring the demos into irreconcilable differences that lead to tyranny...
If so can indirect expression of emotion be calibrated through the imagery of an opposing political rhetoric to undermine difference and rhetoric, disturbing the sediment to uncover problems.
A proposal-as-artwork sits between conception and reality. Not vague but not made, they require interaction to become an object. Interpretation of a language-object and abstracted image that could bring a reality only via entrance to sociality; wether by collaboration or creation of a thought-object.
Where does one leave ones imagination? At receipt of documents intended for understanding, at fruitful negotiation of the viewers own visualisation or at tangeble production; however far removed product is from notion? You could argue imagination is left at the door of most galleries as the assumption 'I don't get it' keeps away the wider public.
When art language is infamous and political rhetoric dangerous could not the dissonance be exploited to undermine a sadistic political style?