In fact it is less the specialists in fields outside of art who fear that someone could be muddling around in their business. It has always been much more the art establishment itself that feels threatened. There is the fear that art could simply dissolve if it wanders too far into the sociopolitical terrain. The art scene is worried that through an acceptance of politically activist art it could forever leave its publicly sanctioned avenues, which are pleasantly privileged even if they don't necessarily lead anywhere. The art community is afraid of losing its identity and its existence.

Why, then, should our conception of art not be allowed to dissolve? If it is important, then it will continue to exist. If it is obsolete, then it doesn't make much sense to prop it up for its own sake. Besides, this fear is unjustified: It merely reveals that a conservative establishment is clutching on to its elitist privileges. In this century there have been innumerable fruitless attempts to do away with the manifest conception of art. When it was still easy to shock with something "new", the conception of art was widened to include everyday or technoid objects, to include things that were considered disgusting or forbidden. Most of these attempts were finally taken up by the traditional arbiters of art and landed in museums, where they are conscientiously attended to in the writing of art history. Activities that sought to dissolve the art concept into the field of mysticism have in hindsight merely extended it. Today as well there is no need to talk about the dissolution of our conception of art, but rather about its transformation. That can only do it good.