Response to "The Whole Ball of Wax"

I found the ideas brought forward in this article to be interesting and thought provoking. Above all else, Saltz's ideas were debatable, or at least the way he broke down his viewpoint. The idea that really stuck with me was presented early on in the first paragraph: "Can art change the world?" Saltz says that in terms of curing illnesses and changing political climates, probably not. He does acknowledge the weight that art can carry and how it can be compared to the likes of science, religion and philosophy. From a literal standpoint, I can see where he is coming from, but from an abstract standpoint, I would have to disagree. I believe that art can cure illness and sway politicians. I think art is the only thing that has ever made any of those advancements possible. If Saltz believes that "art is a bridge to new vision and vision itself, a medium or matrix through which one sees the world," then he must acknowledge that art has power. Art has the power of influence and that gives it immense weight. Now when I say art in this case, I do not necessarily mean a painting. Saltz suggests that art is everything and can be found in everything. I agree with this view. I know that art can be found in words, actions, images, and even circumstances. If you think of life and the way that our morals and motivating forces are developed in individuals, it stems from our experiences. These are the things we hear, see, feel and live through. If that is the case, then art shapes and influences all the change that has ever been made. Asking the question why puts this into perspective. We form our "why's" based on our view of what is important and necessary. The process to develop these beliefs is a work of art in itself. Art is in everything we do and everything we do influences who we are. So can art cure illness and persuade dictators? If not art, then what else?