Response to "The Whole Ball of Wax"

            The article “The Whole Ball of Wax: Can Art Change the World? A Holistic Theory,” by Jerry Saltz exhibits how art is a fundamental part of our world and our human existence. Although Saltz supports his claims that art is a pivotal part of everyday life, his root flaw is that he fails to define what is art. The reader does not know whether Saltz is describing an elite set of artworks or any commercial with a computer animation. By not doing this, he leaves gaps in the argument exhibited. It is also hard to clarify, support or properly argue his position.

               In the third paragraph, the author argues that art is a “universal force” and has “no less meaning” than any other aspect of life namely religion, science, history or mathematics. This is a very charged point as the author is equating the effect of the Mona Lisa to the Polio Vaccine. If art is really the “driving force” behind society, then why does society deemphasize its importance? Today’s society sees something of value if it is profitable and has concrete repercussions. Art, has limitations with this respect. Furthermore, when Saltz says art is necessary, I believe most people would agree (to a degree). Therefore, it does not need to be argued so defensively.

                The author makes the point that “art is a vacation from self,” however, I believe it is fair to argue that it is more of a retreat into oneself. When Gaylen Gerber was looking at vintage furniture, he was bringing a part of himself to a simpler time rather than “vacationing,” from himself. He was bringing himself to a different self. When looking at art it is hard to remove ourselves and our opinions from the piece because we place our own biases on everyday scenarios; therefore, art should be no different.