is maintained but the hierarchy reversed: art is seen as subservient to public needs. Here, the public are interpreted as experts in their own needs: an expertise the artist is expected to learn. The third option is to attempt some kind of synthesis between the public and private spheres. Here the artist and the public, perhaps mediated by the "negotiations" of a curator, enter into some kind of dialogue. This involves the artist acknowledging that his or her work is always determined by the circumstances of its production. In this model, we might say, the artist and the public recognise each other's expertise. Practice here is reflexive, in a way that it is not in the two other conceptions of the public considered above. However, the trouble with all three options is that they maintain the difference between, and separation of, art and the public. Even the third option maintains the separation of specialist areas of activity. All three options avoid the difficult task of thinking about how art and the public are, and might be, reinvented, or transformed, in practice. This is to think about what art, and indeed the public, might become: might be made into. It is worth pointing out, that there can be no experts on the future. * The idea of transformation and change is easily appropriated and emptied out. What needs to be avoided is what Slavoj Zizek calls interpassivity. This is changing things all the time in order to stop things from really