Bourriaud addresses a few major concepts that is debated in international politics. Globalization and Americanization and the role of the artist under this political/social structure has transformed the art world. Well, at least all cultures that subscribed to or have shared the western development (industrialism to informationalism).
He argues theoretically those that partake and are the audience of the art community shape the culture.
He references a quote from Duchamp ' It is the viewer who makes the painting"
This is true in the art world relies heavily on its viewers for interpretation and commentary. Gallery openings, museums, and the elitism of the art world have shaped what art culture is today. Not to say that all art fits under one umbrella but several with different cultures, subcultures, identities, and economic statuses.
But prescribing to western mainstream art criticism would art be significantly different without the audience it has today or from what it has had historically. Would it become less important, would it become insignificant form of the human expression just as newspapers and libraries are becoming less and less important? Would humans absorb a life of the media and technology? Is technology the new cultural hobby?
Media and technology as a medium has placed a divide between the fine art and new medium. Media and technology have created a new form of interpretation that requires a new name and era to categorize its significance.
Bourriaud last section of The Radicant and James Danky meet. Danky wanted to preserve and to ensure that the expression of the subculture art had a place under the social norms of society. Bourriaud suggest after the fall of the Berlin wall that their has been economic standardization globally which has allowed the whole world to meet. Art has modeled itself to conform under this standardization and I would go so far to suggest that this standardization will move art away from the elitism and there will be a cultural norm of interpretation and viewership.