To think of what defines the artworld, one has to engage in a discursive argument that would continue for quite some time. A urinal hung on a wall, a painting completed in all white, a diamond encrusted platinum skull, people sitting on a floor eating pad thai, these moments is art continue to push boundaries and mark the ambiguity of what art history strives to define. An idealist would say that art is anything. It is a point of contention, a shared experience, and even a political rallying cry. The possibilities are endless. A traditionalist would define art in specific terms, probably following the cannon of painting, drawing and sculpture to organize their perspective. Either way the threads that connect culture to the public become even more tenuous either by placing art on an altar that no one can reach or making it in distinguishable from everyday actions.

As of late the question of what is plausible has been on my mind. This is due to a dynamic series of conversations entitled Plausible Artworlds by Philadelphia based group Basekamp. These discussions explore “cultural ecosystems” that differentiate themselves from the dominant models that pervade art. By looking at an array of intersections, interactions and collaborations, they hope to share practices that live at the periphery. In these actions artists play multiple roles as problem solver, community organizer, or archivist. Each Tuesday evening an informal discussion takes place via Skype with artists speaking about the negotiation of various practices.