The Cat in The Hat

The museum defends itself with the rights of private property, but it is supposedly a public institution, so in essence they lie under the same veil as Shapolsky et. al. I would provide this as a legitimately conclusive analysis, except that this is already obvious, since Haacke provided us with another art piece that makes the connection already. So, my question is, should i write anything in my blog post or does nobody care anymore???

Question 4: I'm not exactly sure what makes Haacke's piece art... all I could infer is that, as opposed to photo journalism, Haacke's piece questions implicitly "how proprietorial interests affect the cultural space as well [as explicitly documenting the ownership and control of urban space]" (171). So then it is this implicit meaning (a method which the museum wanted him to imploy to begin with since they thought it had been lacking in it and hence why they did not permit it) that makes Real Estate Pieces art. My question is, is there such a thing as meaningless art, if in that case the meaning would manifest itself as the initial purpose in creating a meaningless art piece, thus instilling the art piece with meaning and making it art?