Art as a Commodity

"The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."

- Lawrence Weiner responding to a question from Liam Gillick in "Between Artists"
pg20

I wouldn’t say that’s true at all, because I wouldn’t say that commodities don’t change a person’s perception of the world.  Technology in general tends to have that effect on people in particular. Computers for example, changed people’s perspectives of the world, I’d say in a longer lasting manner and farther reaching manner than most art has.  I wouldn’t say that if it’s one, it can’t be the other at the same time.  Nor do I think it would be possible for something to change someone’s perception of the world for the rest of their lives, if someone had the same perception for a lifetime, they’d hardly be justified of qualifying art, because a changing and evolving perception is far more necessary to understand the depth and changing context of art.  In my opinion the type of ‘art’ in this quote is impossible, so perhaps nothing is art, and everything is merely a commodity, which I would have an easier time supporting.