In much of the 20th century, artists and critics were more or less in agreement about what constituted avant-garde practice, that is, how we understand what it means to be political or progressive. It entailed antagonism, corruption, dissemination — in general anything that helps to storm the bastions of power in order to fleece them of their hierarchies, their centralized power, their ability to organize and control things. Thus, we could talk about the great avant-garde gesture of ‘revealing the apparatus,’ evident in figures like Godard or Brecht. Yet I think today — and it is counter intuitive, to be sure — but I think today all of this has changed. It might sound cynical but I suspect that the powers that be have wised up and have incorporated these avant-garde principles into their own structures of organization. Today ‘being disruptive’ is something that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs strive to do. Consequently artists have become more reticent about labelling their practices subversive, disruptive, or resistive, because those are the virtues of modern capitalism. So finally to answer your question I think that today we have to be a bit old fashioned! We have to reevaluate some of the old fashioned categories. Things like authenticity, absorption, attention, focus or, to use a very unfashionable concept, Aura (as in the old essay by Walter Benjamin). In considering physical spaces of art like galleries and museums, they might wish to resist the impulse to go online, to resist the notion that their function has to be exclusively disseminatory. Indeed perhaps we might return to that old fashioned category of the sanctum. Perhaps we need more authentic spaces that are truly different. Foucault has a very provocative concept, the heterotopia, which means a space that is qualitatively its own.