Though I fully understand the purpose of the Happenings was to destruct the traditional archetype of art/art viewing/art making relationships, this writing has left me with more than a few questions.
The first being, is this ever truly possible? The obvious flaws with involving others is that they are essentially always "outsiders." Not involved in the creative process from the beginning they are happenstance to whatever is asked of them, inevitably bringing their thoughts and interpretations (adding to the art in an unplanned but meaningful way) as well as their discomfort and embarrassment (which as the author states, "they quite rightly resented") For me, this seems to me no more artful than being called upon in a nightclub act; the idea of which the author seems to find utterly reprehensible.
In my interpretation, the author is suggesting that any activity, if planned out accordingly before hand can become a work of art. If I go to the deli counter, the dry cleaner, and the post office with no previous discourse of my days events, though a well planned course of action formed in my head; does that transform the days chores into a work of art? Or does it take the verbal communication of your intentions for these actions to become art? If so, doesn't the acknowledgment of intention create an audience? Even further creating the dynamic of artist/audience at the time in which these verbal cues are given? Is it indeed possible to eliminate the artist/audience relationship?
Finally, if all aspects of life can be viewed as artistic in nature, it is no longer art imitating life, but rather life becoming art? I find it an inspiring idea that all of life may be considered as art as long as it is lived with intention and purpose...