Kati

What I got from Kaprow's statements from his "Art Which Can't Be Art" message is the inability to define what art can and can't be. From the famed dadaist Marcel Duchamp to the Kaprow's own short description of his art-identified activities, he explains to us the challenge of what can be known as art and what noy. Kaprow points out how Dadaist art like Duchamp's famed "R.Mutt" urinal to even Andy Warhol's pyramid of Bristol boxes (not mentioned in the article) changed art by taking found, everyday objects unseen as art and placing it in a museum such as art would be. The concept of art is challenged.
Then, if art can really be found as anything we normally come into contact with that is originally not seen as art, can anything be art? Can Kaprow's example of brushing our teeth be accepted as art even though we, Kaprow's audience, do not view it as such?

I wonder if this might be true.
Definately when I brushed my teeth this morning, for instance, I was not thinking "look at the art I'm creating!" I was more focused on how if I get this done fast enough I can catch my Bart ride to school. I definitely do not see it similar to sitting down to paint or draw or do anything I consider creative.

However, I did like Kaprow's explanation of his toothbrushing experience. From observing the tension between his fingers holding the brush, to the expression made when brushing. He just looked at himself while doing it, taking notice of how he might have to make a visit to the dentist while noticing how he is no different than anyone else in his oral hygiene upkeep.

I found it fascinating that he would learn so much of himself even in something so ordinary as toothbrushing.
Then, I think the question should be, is art characterized as something that allows self-discovery? Yet, is it only capable through something creative?