Theoretical Frameworks pt. 2

I found Ranciere's four types of contemporary exhibitions and installations interesting in light of the conversations between the faculty at ATC. Some of the staff seemed to be only interested in the mystery or the "vague borders between the familiar and the strange" (Ranciere pg 91). The minute the art started to approach the other modes (game, inventory or invitation) they where uninterested. Other faculty members seemed to be completely opposite and felt that the work should function as more of a commentary through the use of double meanings or re-interpretation of non-art objects. The first sign of mystery seemed to ruin the work for them. Some of my work is more based in the mystery and some of it uses the other outlined types. I was asked to choose which way I am going to make art in the future. Why cant an artist take on a different role based on the intent of the project? Maybe you can spread yourself too thin. It seems like if the art world cant easily define you and your work, they cant market you to an audience. If Anselm Kiefer came out with a new project that did not have that sense of mystery, people would probably hate it. And does anyone want to listen to Barbara Kruger talk about her personal emotions??