Anyway, the last bit of "Installation Art in the 21st Century" covered a lot of ground, but I found the chapter on "The Body of the Audience" particularly interesting, and very relevent to many class discussions from this quarter and last. These kinds of installations--the immersive, interactive, fully engaging "total spaces"-- are what I feel confuse many students in the class when we talk about the definition of the installation. These pieces, like Michae Landy's "Break Down" (176-177) and John Bock's lecture-based intallations (180-81), that so literally require an audience's presence and participation have somehow become, to many students, the only pieces that are truly "installation." I think this is a misguided attitude. Installation cannot be easily defined as a medium, as painting or photography or performance can, because there is no set of tools inherent in an installation's production. The scope of installation as an artform is limitless and, thus, cannot be molded to a list of rules and requirements. Defining installation concretely seems to be a pressing concern for a great deal of the class, but I see it as a futile one. What's the gain in concensus? I say we happily agree to disagree, craft our own definitions, pursue our own visions, and make art that matters because it means something, inside or out of constrictive definitions.