{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020538243626062325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006373937677053824, 'mean_word_length': 5.308035714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Playing Hooky/Simulating Work: The Random Generation of John Baldessari

As traditional patronage gave way to new markets in the modern period, artists went in search of a public. The public sphere, driven inward by the private interests of capitalism, increasingly offered art a pure exchangevalue and the role of a luxury good (something to match the couch). Artists, seeing no place else to go, pursued an endgame, sustaining art’s vitality through inventive, elemental, and critically intelligent forms of negation. A key question was how to contend with the sham of taste—and artistic subjectivity more generally—as a refuge or antidote to the crass engines of the market. In the 1960s and 1970s, when much of the American art establishment was celebrating New York school painting as a national triumph of individual expression, a young generation of artists was developing new strategies for disavowing subjectivity. These strategies took opposing positions on the role of chance. One strategy consisted of miming the strict logic of administrative calculation. Benjamin Buchloh has argued that conceptual art engaged in such mimesis to eradicate all vestiges of traditional aesthetic experience and to refuse any compensatory cooperation with industrial forces.1 According to this view, conceptual artists, in an act of disenchantment, reproduced the operating logic of capitalist society instead of pur-