The project helped give expression to a desire to move away from previous forms of political and socially motivated art, which are too often still tied to the traditional museum or gallery 'exhibition' (think here of the issues surrounding the effectiveness (or relevance?) of much of today's so-called 'institutional critique' art within today's cultural institutions) in favor of a 'laboratory' concept. This laboratory would be one that embraces failure but also resists pushing towards producing a final object. Most important was the notion of a transmitting of the cultural and the political by accumulating content that would be displayed for one day only, without the intentions of it being conserved or integrated into a museographic discourse.
The resistance to politics by aesthetics has been shown to be a well oiled machine, its ideology being built within the institutional and academic confines that support art without political content. This of course comes with the understanding that previous forms of political art have now become extinct or have been trivialized by their repeated (read: hollow) conflations between political concerns and aesthetics (indeed, regardless of content, what political art does not get reassigned a market value?), so their life in the canonical and consumable marketplace has seemingly reached a logical conclusion. Dematerialized political aesthetics are problematic for the art market but this does not mean that their viability is not current and unnecessary as an intellectual and artistic departure.
Through the premise of inviting artists to produce aesthetic experiments, it makes political art forms assume their own internal movement, one that migrates and morphs through each artist concerned with art and politics. Beyond any and all notions of what 'art' should or should not, can or cannot, be, we need to use a broader language of aesthetics to breech the political and to provide a space for the political in art to thrive in contemporary culture.
