In “Conversation Pieces” (2004), Grant Kester argues that art practitioners are no longer obliged to provide content or material, physical proof of a artistic process, to be considered art, but suffice it to say that a situation or circumstance can be identified as art. He references the work of the Wochenklauser art collective, artist Suzanne Lacey, and several community groups working on principles of exchange and “relational aesthetics,” to support this view. The projects considered share an interest with the creative service of dialogue and exchange and take place in places far from the conventional sites in which we situate art (i.e. museums and galleries). The conversation becomes an intrinsic part of the work itself. Kester uses the term “dialogical” to represent these and similar works that feature participatory elements. In it, he historically situates these socially conscious activities and associates them with key concerns of contemporary and avant-garde art and theory. In this essay, I will use two examples of contemporary artists using this "immaterial" practice that both support and challenge Kester's argument. I will discuss and analyze the construction of Kester's argument, present my examples and compare them in order to construct an informed understanding and concrete conclusion on the relevance and strength of his claim. In it, Kester calls for a shift in the understanding of what a work of art is and suggests that it should be seen as an experience of duration; it calls for aesthetics to be sustained rather than immediate and instantaneous. He asks very important questions, the first being: "Is it possible to develop an intercultural dialogue without sacrificing the unique identity...... middle of paper ......st" prove that his project is to art. ? Would it still be art if one of the students involved had come up with the idea, or would it be social activism? If one of the politicians participating in the Wochenklauser boat trips had come up with the idea of ​​an impartial debate, would it be art or a new strategy for political engagement? What makes these activities art? Again, the question Kester should perhaps ask is whether intention is more important than content rather than context. It is with this that it suffices to say that yes, artists are no longer obliged to present a physical entity to be labeled. art and subsequently a place for discussion, but it is sufficient to provide any form of context that can spark discussion and change. However, there must be an element of conventional understanding of art, i.e. artist status, placement in a traditional art institution..