When objects are presented within the context of art (and until recently objects always have been used) they are as eligible for aesthetic consideration as are any objects in the world, and an aesthetic consideration of an object existing in the realm of art means that the object's existence or functioning in an art context is irrelevant to the aesthetic judgment.

I liked that the work itself was something other than simply what you saw It meant you could have an art work which was that idea of an art work, and its formal components weren't important.

When objects are presented within the context of art (and until recently objects always have been used) they are as eligible for aesthetic consideration as are any objects in the world, and an aesthetic consideration of an object existing in the realm of art means that the object's existence or functioning in an art context is irrelevant to the aesthetic judgment.

Unlike the marks of a painting, the photo seems to organize its 'opinions' in relation to the world; even when the photographs have clearly been manipulated, the 'opinions' seem to have all the more force, with the suggested 'participation of the world' articulating that 'opinion' as a difference.

Making something new to look at is a futile and empty act if its only audience is the eyes.

Seeing is not as simple as looking.

All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually.