O Shaughnessy: Can Art Change The World?

All throughout history, empires have risen and fallen. No matter how mighty or eternal they seemed, they eventually fell like all the others before them. Take Rome, for example; an empire that lasted more than 2,000 years but fell to simple barbarians, the likes of who would have been crushed underfoot earlier in its reign. In history class, students are always taught that empires fell because these people attacked or because those people were not powerful enough, but it was not just the armies ad nations that caused it all. For every war, there was a motive behind it, one that the people cause. This driving force was led by the ones that reflect the ideas and emotions of the people, the artists and musicians. These are the ones who

He was talking about how they are "the movers and shakers / Of the world forever, it seems." (in-text citation) This implies more than just the fact that artists have the power to change the world. In fact, artists do not change the world in itself, they change the world by changing individual people. Art, music, and the like all deal in emotion, or "beauty," (in-text citation, adler) not fact. But how can art change people? Does it make them realize some truth, change the way they see the world, or awaken a new emotion in them that causes them to act upon it? Nancy J. Adler proposes an answer to this question with another question; "Could artistic perspectives transform our conceptualizations and research paradigms, rendering the impossible a bit less improbable?" (citation) In other words, could art change the way people see the world? The idea is both shocking and, at the same time, very believable. The whole point of the arts is to reflect the emotions of the artist and to try to impart them upon the reader or listener. It is the reason why people spend ridiculous amounts of money on artwork, why millions upon millions listen to the latest hits on the radio, and why incredible amounts of money are spent making and watching movies; because it makes them feel something. It is why, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. puts it "Almost always, the creative minority has made the world

His true love was his poetry, and he was constantly comparing the two, poetry vs. science, art vs. work, and because of this he was said to have been brought into the aesthetic movement. While he saw work as simply "his way of earning a living," (citation) he saw poetry as something truly worthwhile, "...as an act of spontaneous genius, a moment when an artist gains access to another world, another plane of being." (citation) This may have been his motivation for creating "Ode," the fact that he felt restricted and useless in his job but felt useful and worthwhile while creating poetry. He struggled often with whether to categorize even his poetry as work or as art, and that is reflected in "Ode," where he goes between calling artists "Dreamers of dreams," (citation) suggesting that they created art for its own sake, and saying "We fashion an empire's glory," (citation) suggesting that art served a greater purpose. But really, it is both, as O'Shaughnessy portrayed it in "Ode." The way he pictured it seems to show that it is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake, but does inadvertently have a greater purpose, the fact that it and its creators