I think that overall this was a very good article. It provided lots of examples of social practice art and what kind of an impact it has on people. I think that when people feel they can connect to something as complex as art, and when art is used as a weapon almost, the effect is powerful. I think a flaw in this article was that it was very example heavy, but did not provide much of a thesis or argument. It was more of a list of pros and cons almost of social practice art rather than saying it is good or bad, effective or ineffective, or how it should be classified.
I think that the article also opens up a lot of questions that it did not entirely address. However, these questions can be used to further a discussion on the topic. For example, much of the examples of social practice art provided could easily fall more towards the realm of demonstration, not necessarily art. I think that many of the examples reflected activism, but it could be argued that they were not necessarily "art." I think the article should have explored the visual aspects of the projects more than just their impact.
I also think that while the examples provided were interesting, there was a lack of context provided. For example, the row houses example was somewhat confusing because the conditions of the area and how the row houses would be impactful was ambiguous. Overall though, the article provided conclusive explorations of social practice art and how it can affect and touch the lives of everyday people. I think art can be applied to almost every aspect of life and this article showed how that has been done and how successful it can be.
I am an art student at Maggie Walker and this is the place where I talk about what we're making and what we're learning... Through this I can pour out my heart about my artistic experience.