One person’s utopia is another person’s hell.

I had heard this phrase and wondered where it came from.
I found an essay examining philosopher Agnes Heller and her husband Ferenc Feher and their criticism of Marxist utopian views [A Postmodern Utopia? Heller and Feher's Critique of Messianic Marxism, Journal article by Michael Gardiner; Utopian Studies, Vol. 8, 1997] and I began to think about this idea of utopia, microtopias and the Utopian Station.

"Utopia," they argue, "is the social condition under which all kinds of Utopias can be realized".
...
Each "major" utopia, understood as an imaginary construction of a form of life that foresees a successful fusion of goodness and human happiness, is inherently particularistic, especially in the context of postmodernity. Simply put, given the radical pluralization of contemporary society, one person's utopia is another's idea of hell, to paraphrase Max Beerbohm's famous maxim. As such, the best avenue is to enshrine the two meta-values of freedom and equal life-chances for all, and to give people the latitude and capacity to be able to visualize their own utopias. Utopia is a form of life that must be freely chosen; otherwise, it is a false promise, and a potentially tyrannical one.

Yet despite their questioning of the redemptive model of utopia, Heller and Feher, do not countenance a reconciliation with the impoverished and commodified reality of contemporary capitalism. This disavowal of the blueprint model of utopia does not mean Heller and Feher do not subscribe to a utopian vision of their own; it simply means they do not advocate it as a definitive solution for all humankind's ills.

From the readings, I glean the “utopia” definition has been altered dependent on who said what, when and where. Sir Thomas More’s idea of “utopia” is altered from Karl Marx’s idea “utopian socialism.” It has morphed just as the term “avant-garde” has been altered since 1863.

Nicolas Bourriaud’s microtopias, according to Claire Bishop in her Tate talk, are mini versions of the utopias which will not solve the world’s problems, but are just smaller, scaled down versions to reach harmony. Artists, through relational art, are just try to make it a bit better in the present time . She goes on...”instead of trying to change our world, artists are learning to inhabit our world in a better way.” She says, “Bourriaud states that it seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present, than to bet on happier tomorrows.”

But then, who is to say and define what “utopia” is. Why is this the goal? Is the Utopian Station a relational way to search for dialog to begin a search? Then I go back to that Beerbohm maxim.

I have to agree with Hal Foster and the fine line artists tread when casting a wide net in relational art and, as he put it, the society of extras. I guess when I come down to it, I still appreciate the contemplative quiet I can glean from art made by an artist [singular] rather than the din of relational art.