This equal treatment and mutual respect for both the aesthetic and civic contribution of its citizens for the foundations of a society directly contradicts the reality of contemporary regard for these industries. Artists are traditionally marganlized, undersupported and underfunded. In the western tradition, it is this marganilized status that elevates the artist to marketablity. On the other hand, Civic practitioners are rewarded by financial support and recognition by their contemporaries.

I offer the theory that Artists and Civic Practitioners (i.e. Lawyers, Judges and Politicians) share cooresponding intellectual qualities necessary to succeed in their chosen practices. Each usually share an equal amount of education, an aptitude for logic, critical thinking and analytical reasoning. Additionally both require an ability to advocate and persuade a trier of fact or audience of a chosen position or argument. These qualities, in addition to case research and presentation, all lend themselves to the viability of this analogy.

To test this thesis I participated in admission exams, application processes and completed a course of study at an accredited Law School as a multi-year performance.

This event culminated in graduation as well as sitting for and passing the New York and New Jersey Bar Exams. The tangible art that has resulted from this event includes: "Harvard Rejection Letter," "Unopened Grade Reports - Eight Semesters," "Used Book Tower," and "Diploma".