Created Means

In one sense Art is the gift and blessing we have as humans to live a life constantly subject to termination and forfeit. The very question regarding just how much Art has changed the world, if it ever has goes to the heart of this matter. Let's say it did, let's say something created today ended all forms of sexual assault. Now, I can't think of a more heinous crime with perhaps the greatest number in favor for its elimination from human behavior, better yet let's just end all wars with the opening exhibition of my latest painting. Now that the world has changed, now what? LOL Do you see the load of sand concealed in this question? People really ought be more skillful in their participation and stop asking questions which have nothing meaningful to offer except to fill someone's need for interactive noise I guess.

But to finish this argument in obliteration of the illusion IE the implied value of Art's relevance to our World and more importantly what is not working in our world and needs fixing through positive change. In one sense, I have just handed you the real answer you were looking for. I don't know why you had to make art part of the equation for positive progress with respect to chronic conditions which degrade our happiness in some way. But whatever , the theme is Art, an antidote for life living in this world? OR, a narcisstic self-indulgent diversion and distraction from our paying attention more seriously and effectively to this world and those breakdowns with continue to impact us? 

That really seems to be the undisclosed moral issue at work here for the questioner. As long as he thinks of this dualistically, I doubt any formulation of his inquiry will be capable of producing much more interest in me except to close my answer by suggesting everyone to consider just what a remedied world moment would be like as an invitation to move forward minus the call for heroes and what not.

For me, I don't see Art changing or our relationship to it changing, which is to say that Art functions for us as an end in itself NOT as a tool which by virtue of its originality would suggest for itself to be considered whenever progress comes to a standstill or stagnant conditions begin to accumulate. But this opens a whole different can of worms I think. As an end in itself, providing us with a record of aesthetic value we can consume in the future and to some extent relive and recapture the original bounty in terms of new energy Art often creates in the viewers, I see Art as a really cool icon of creativity and its intensity, capacity to create joy and fun, and also its depth from which true originality springs every once in a while.

It's man's primary internal playground of the highest aspirations and most gifted souls. In that space of dynamic play, man connects with a vibrational level in the cosmos which echoes true freedom I think. Along with everything I've said then there is one moral imperative I'd close this essay with which is an admonishment to all to ALLWAYS do the very best work they can and then push that at least one degree every time you think of it. Why?

By being devoted to Giving, from the creative paradigm, everything you have on all levels, IMHO it aligns our consciousness of flow and the karmic links attached there closer to the religious leader's notions regarding prosperity - the reaping of what you sow, without need or even capacity at times to explain positive results which accrue out of that space (where miracles and magic happen). For sure, one thing ought to be understandable enough and that is that if the choice is a conscious one, making one's metaphysics tightly relevant to the sociopolitical dimension of life (at least for those who truly want to make a difference on that level) could very possibly be the worst thing you could do. When Art itself, given a person's abundant attention and then some, IS whatever antidote one might conceive of being needed for our evolution. AT LEAST on the level of source and possibility, it ONLY reconciles and transforms when the artist's aim remains giving and not exploitive, for this unconditioned offering is necessary for the artifact's beauty. An artifact opens the viewers ability to imagine possibility for themselves beyond and in ways divine and unseen. Mostly we just experience the greater love inflowing through our consciousness, and in that sense a viewer's experience is unified to the artist and his being in life is validated as having some aspect of perfect value, confirmed, realized, created.

Defining Powerful Art...

Questioner:  Does the most powerful art come from adversity or equally from pain and pleasure?

Define 'powerful' first maybe?  There are so many different discrete volume settings associated with an artist's dynamic range of inputs blended more or less skillfully in an artifact.  Notions like adversity combined with pleasure and pain doesn't help this innocuous probe into artistic value. Especially given how these ideas are more indicative of the tactile sense (though adversity implies a psychological conflict).

Isn't that real seat of where Art begins to manifest as a process in man which culminates in the final artifiact created?  The level to start this inquiry in where Art's primal beginnings originate creativity obviously must be where free will and imagination interact the most dynamically and free, somehwere more or less pragmatic or not. The essential neuropathway forms the foundation for the cognitive engine from which art may be properly considered to have as its source. There are of course old models regarding creativity which juxtapose it against states of blissful serenity beginning with the friction and heat generated by opposites sexually and through sublimating that adversity instead of transforming it with love into ecstacy, creativity has historically been seen to get its POWER or potency of effect.

But please know my response is based on more conjecture than it is on having any confidence that I in fact am spot on with respect to the questioner's true search? I mean with all due respect the right answer for this particular question ought to be about the hierarchy of details, each serving its own purpose and yet the entire gestalt arbitrarily conceived of within the artist's mind defines powers of originality. Powerful art is the successful reconciliation of dualism by the artist in his own cognition and with precision translated and expressed formally and materially in the world in which the typical adversity present in dichotomies is resolved in an integirty, call it what you wish by difference of perspective it matters not except that all verify the existence of beauty as the common denominator forming the essence of that integrity.

Thus the essence of  beauty has ore to do with a certain balanced structure to relationship which thus gives rise to the old  adage that it is in the eye of the beholder.

The Book of Mormon, A Broadway Musical

Find a "review" of Jon Stewart's interview with the creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone at popwatch.ew.com, on their latest production titled, The Book of Mormon. While I haven't seen the show yet and may not for some time, from everything I've heard and read so far I am encouraged enough to feel confident in promoting this show unequivocally.

There was a moment in the interview with Jon when the word mystery was spoken as something primary to their purpose aka their personal higher authority/power. I like the idea of how they appear to be escorting in to society teaching perspectives on how to utilize mystery as an explorative tool, with the result being something quite germaine to peace and harmony. Certainly, a key step in manifesting peace is one's ability to be open to and appreciate different points of view. I think its appropriate that their "religion of mystery," representing a collective evolution in the paradigm of religion, would be expressed musically with its revelations in humor. In a post religious world of genuine holy freedoms these elements would be my preference, for starters anyway.