if everything is art, is nothing art?

{missed blog post 3 here my make-up!}

 Hilton Kramer is different and I think that he believes that if the family structure were to be restored that it would help society from drifting into a state of individualism.  He believes family and tradition is at the core of what changes society.  He thinks that art has little to nothing to do with what molds society and our cultural views.  Popular culture he believes is what constructs society or should I say deconstructs society, he has no hope in art to save the world which is contradictory of many of the conversations we have had included the speaker Jack Ryan we listened to on Tuesday.  

Jack Ryan was all about art being able to change and mold society, he wanted his art to remind people of the sublime and to ask questions, create thought and conversation in order to better understand society and this world.  Ryan stated, "I want the audience to take away an experience where they're challenged to ask themselves complex questions."  I think that if Kramer stepped back he would realize similarities between his views of tradition and family and Ryan's not so traditional views of art.  Ryan wants people to understand their relationship with people and nature, to come to grips with the finiteness and realize their place in the world; he wants his audience to become grounded when they find answers to those complex questions.  Kramer wants the same thing he wants people to realize their place in the world to become grounded but not through art through family, they both have the same intent both just see it coming from different sources.  Kramer differs from the next speaker Satish Kumar in a sense that he believes art cannot serve as a means for transformation and unfortunately society is only molded by the poisoning of pop culture, however Kumar sees art in a very different light and believes everything is art.  It's a sort of decoration of life that is constantly reflecting and molding society and although she believes in tradition she thinks that art is a perfectly good medium in which to get to society through.

Kumar was very well spoken and I enjoyed reading this conversation, I took many notes through out the pages and have way to many quotes to share.  Although one I thought stood out because of its versatility and applicability in all our conversations we've read this year.  "You are part of the anima mundi and anima mundi is part of you," (142).  Kumar stressed the realization that individual soul is not separate from the soul of the world but one in the same just as art is not separate from this world but a part of it.  She talks about Indian thinking as being a continuum of thought (kind of how I talk about how art and thought is continually being recycled and all new thoughts are just revised thoughts from the past) a flow of art and thinking being passed on and continued from artist to artist.  In India art is decorating their lives not hidden in cubicles of white walls and bogus religiosity, it is apart of them as they are apart of it.  One thing we forget in western civilization is that the individual cannot be separated from the communal, social, universal body.  Western civilization is so caught up in this idea of individualism and this post modern era keeps telling us come out with something new, something only you, but there is nothing that is only 'you'... the creations artist come up with are merely reflections of what they see, observe... which is the world and society.  It is not just one artist coming up with a piece but everything and everyone that has affected that persons perception is the creator, everyone is the artist of that piece.

When we debate about whether a 5 year old or an unartistic person can make art, I think Kumar offers us an answer, "the artist is not a special kind of person, but every person is a special kind of artist," (137).  We are all artists and all creations created are art.