How much must an artist be involved in the creation process to consider the work to be his or hers? Take Amebas by Lasse Ursin (http://elia-artschools.org/festival/work/amebas) for instance. He created a machine that paints whenever a viewer approaches it. Sure, he made the machine, but he did not paint anything himself. Does that make him the engineer, who built the machine, or the artist, who created the art? And does it matter, as long as the result is aesthetically pleasing and thought-provoking?

The same question arises when considering ... by Tapio Oksa (http://elia-artschools.org/festival/work/) and Rapport 1984 by Aurore (http://elia-artschools.org/festival/work/rapport-1984), or any installation for that matter. The effect and aesthetics are there, but where is the artist? I know someone built this machine, but where is he? Where is the creator and his aura? And why is the hand that held the screwdriver different from the hand that held the brush or camera?

Why am I asking all these questions? Who knows. Probably all the art has started to kick in.