Art Which Can't Be Art

From the article, I got that Kaprows main argument is that Modernism is a very different type of art that has ties to the past yet is entirely new. One must look at what would be considered traditional art and what would be considered a completely ordinary occurrence  and find some way to connect those without actually doing either of the two. I think that is seems a little vague, but at the same time makes perfect sense in context with what is happening in the modernism era. This is relevant to the class because it is talking about carefully observing and recording  everything that happens in a particular point in time, and also that it is giving the creative freedom to think outside of the box as opposed to always doing the same type of art one is familiar with. At some point he also states that the great impact of things like Duchamps  'Fountain'  become trivialized when similar works or ideas are used by other artists which I took as a warning to not follow in the footsteps of other artists and constantly try to come up with fresh ideas without overlooking the everyday tasks.