This book, presented as a critical text, gave academic cred to a group of artists who needed it. Like the fake articles in glossy magazines that upon closer inspection reveal themselves to be advertisements, this book hyped up a handful of artists whose self-congratulatory practices were all style and no content. The claim that Rirkrit Tiravanija or Liam Gillick had any sort of groundbreaking political novelty to present cannot withstand critical pressure. As we have seen, nothing they did had any effect other than annexing previously disruptive practices into the polite world of the gallery elite. Their actual relevance faded as did the ability of this text to hold any sort of critical water. Our generation's version of the emperor's new clothes. See Claire Bishop's Participation and her dialogue with Liam Gillick to see how flimsy Relational Aesthetics really is. (and by the way, it isn't just the poor translation's fault). Julian Stallabrass and Bishop both come at this type of work with a far sharper set of tools, and show that by Bourriaud's own claims, the artists who should be the referents here look far more like Thomas Hirshhorn and Gonzalez-Torres. In the context of these other artists and thinkers, Bourriaud's worldview just can't hold up.