To be a bit more simple and straightforward:
Art develops a renewed focus on the live. This does not emerge simply in its specific relation to the live, but in terms a of larger cultural context in which the live appears as a counter to the endlessly broadening field of digital social engagement. But once having opened up this relation, once having discovered a relation to specific everyday circumstances – once having insinuated itself within the texture of all manner of live actions – art, itself (?) is intrinsically affected. For a start, all the conventional indicators of art making – of representation, documentation, condensation and displacement – become problematic, insufficient, pained. There is a need to base art within the live, as some kind of structuring of the live, but one that appears not so much as an external structural/formal/conceptual imposition as something that somehow responds to the field of live and is inextricably bound to it. In this manner, art resists its characteristic formal mechanisms and tics. It threatens to theatrically dissolve.
More straightforward again:
Art can provide an excuse for life – a rationale for doing something. My ALMBWABPBIDCFERTIE project enabled me to take a number of walks in the escarpment and to discover places that I had not previously visited. It provided a structure for my walks and a means of walking more.
Art can interfere with life. Stupid procedures can wreck the natural rhythm of events (or, more properly, the pleasurable rhythm of events). Yet at other times the imposition of additional elements can enrich the event, can make it more pointedly and intensely experienced. Cutting out car pieces and drawing maps on wadded bits of wet paper provide examples for me.
My original assumption that ordinary life needs to be somehow protected from the depradations (the colonising force) of art is dubious. Art can provide ways of rediscovering the possibility of the everyday, of making it lucidly available.