Increasingly, I’m interested in the question of the artist's relationship with spaces in general, and especially those that we consider "artistic", referring mainly to galleries and studios. Thus, for an artist, the studio must be a safe space within which we can allow ourselves to simply be stupid. Can we consider the existence of a work of art in an exhibition space as banal? Or, as William Kentridge states, "galleries are completely non-creative spaces". He highlights the moment of "stupidity" within the workspace, which should be crucial for encouraging a creative approach when exhibiting art. These statements prompted me to deepen the need for questioning the concept of “bricking” the spaces I consume in the context of art expression, therefore to deeply question the notion of engagement (or lack of it) with my community. The brick itself looks like a simple and functional object, and although it is far from attractive, for me it represents the basis of testing conceptual art in a broader sense. It is true - anyone can put a brick in a gallery, however the point is not to observe the brick within its purpose, but to test one's own perception of how far the meaning of an object can go. In this sense, if someone's interpretation of the brick as an art object within the exhibition space is prevented by their own assumption that it truly is just a brick, then it is certainly not up to me (or anyone else) to change that opinion. On the other hand, if someone in this naivety sees an opportunity for a deeper examination of the meaning of the object inside the exhibition space even though he concluded that it really is just a brick, then it is an excellent opportunity for a 10-minute reflection on the purpose of collective learning about the importance of art within any community. Regardless of whether the attitude towards the brick inside the gallery is positive or negative, it is certainly valuable that the moment for, as Kentridge states, creative “stupidity” is being fully fulfilled.