While superficially this might appear to be a relevant conceit/statement/question, it is the wrong conceit/question/statement posed to the wrong group of people. It also appears to assume an automatic critique/dismissal of the most recent editions of Documenta. There might be some value in putting the conceit/statement/question to a group of curators alongside those invited to consider it here. A dynamic range of activity, paradox, and potential is with the curator. The curators’ role should be and is posed as a conceit or statement orquestion alongside that of the artist, and this process should not be stopped through excess projection around the historical construction of the idea of what an artist may or may not represent. There is an assumed separation of roles here that does not exist in the most productive projects now and has not done for many years.

Interestingly, however, the conceit/statement/question appears to provoke considered responses from those invited to think it through, which tends to lead us to assume that, while it is the wrong conceit/statement/question posed to the wrong people, it is not an uninteresting or unproductive question. This might lead us to think that asking the wrong people the wrong question could be a productive thing (in general); however, it remains unclear whether it is possible to conclude such precise, generalized conclusions from a process such as this.