Regarding Suely Rolnik's question, which you answered with Felix Gonzales-Torres, it sounds like her question was about the distinction between an artwork and its artifacts. Until very recently the artwork was itself the artifact. But now the artwork is a performance, a film, a happening, or a concept. Either Matt Barney hires actors to dance around his art, or he makes movies and sells their props and filmstills. Pick the more lucrative answer.

Anyway, pomo art is intended specifically for public interaction. One cannot own the work, one can only own an exclusive right to portray it. A sale of such work becomes like a book auction, where lots are sold not to be possessed, but to be published. A Felix Gonzales-Torres work will never be stolen by a drug lord to hang on his wall as a trophy.

About Manolo Borja's question: How can we distinguish a "pomo museum" from a kunsthal(le)? If a pre-pomo museum ("mo museum") is a fixed place intended to generate a specific museum-going experience, and if the pomo experience is not supposed to be so fixed, because each pomo work of art is supposed to generate its own special experience, then isn't the pomomu ("nomo museum") just a big empty space that can be reconfigured upon demand, then filled however the artist and curator desires, with writhing, sweating ... um ... artworks?

We build ersatz monasteries to display 15th century icons, and we emulate Georgian and Victorian salons when we display art of those eras, so if we want to display pomo artworks in their natural habitat, maybe museums need to start building separate project spaces and calling them their "pomo wing".