Reading #6: Tactical Meida

Question #1:

"To articulate tactical media in terms of performance rather than as a static art object emphasizes viewer experience and engagement.  Tactical media is thus relational in the terms Nicolas Bourriaud has outlined, like much contemporary art activity, in that it takes 'as its theoretical horizon the realm of human interactions and its social context, rather than the assertion of an independent and private symbolic.'."

Going off this little statement I feel that any form of contemporary art can be seen as tactical media if presented well.  But my main question is if a person can't relate to the subject matter in an art piece, does it make a powerful tactical media influence?

Question #2:

"The law of cool, then, is 'the gesture' of ambivalent, recusant oppositionality (not quite a 'statement,' 'expression,' or even 'representation' of defiance) within knowledge work.  The coolest ideology of art within the culture of information is 'destructive creativity,' of which hacking would be one logical extension."

If the point of tactical art is to make a powerful statement, why can't it also be presented as "cool"?  I also feel that in order for, let's say political graffiti, to be strong in context it needs to show some type of edge.  Overall the piece would need a balance of all the elements listed above; but if someone is creating tactical media they would have to have some sort of strong opinion towards what they're creating to make it in the first place.