Very interesting points, DMHodge. I think I am in agreement with you regarding the uneven development of the geopolitical system, the unifying structure of the marketplace, and that CA operates from a narrow framework – however, it is also willing, as Manuel pointed out above, to hoover up the particularities of these uneven developments and represent them within this narrow framework. Works which reflect these conflicts, which should spark real debate regarding questions of form and content, as Mo knows in regards to the Here and Elsewhere show at NuMu, become instead just another curiosity to be filtered through the circuit. The question with art, isn’t so much one of shifting our view back to a properly political field, which then become the “real” question that we simply have to notice in different artworks – there will always be, no matter how advanced development becomes – real political tensions, and people making art about them. What we lack right now, is a means of aesthetically differentiating disciplinary shifts that reveal that movement. With this does come a political question, but it may not be one that is tackled by the production of more art, but rather the production of a politics of art that can destabilize the institutional and economic sovereignty of the market status quo. To do this, I think you have to begin by prefiguring a sense of a positive conception of the field and what it would look like if it were to take seriously the hard questions of aesthetic judgement, and how those come to be realized and recognized through the aesthetic operation, that is, if we believe that aethetics (as a domain of operation) really has anything to contribute to these political aporias. Simply setting forth this epistemic view is not enough though, it may require strategies of market capture and institution building that are not in themselves art projects. So yes, CA may be a narrow perspective, but one that is dominant. I do think we have to begin to think about how these issues can be separated, and then, how they come back together, can be redefined, and confronted, rather than viewing them as an immovable totality, else we are left with a position of despair.