Do you think that art is better today or when it was being created in the days of the Renaissance? Obviously, the works of Michelangelo and his contemporaries has stood the test of time. The profound strokes by Da Vinci continue to confuse art historians to this day. The mastery of their mediums could not be disputed, but what about their position in society? Much of the work was closely related to what the public was thinking about, as religion related equally to governmental policies as it did with spirituality. However, this is where I begin to falter in my leaning towards the masters.

I'm not sure what art means to an artist and I'm not sure what it means to art historians, but I can offer my personal considerations as someone who passively appreciates the art that is all around. It seems that art is goes beyond the innate need for beauty by humans. Art tells the stories and histories of people, gives a voice to the wants, desires, and hopes of the present and for the future.

If this is the case, then art should not exclusively be commissioned by governments and religious leaders. True history and life happens in the streets to those whose lives are ultimately affected several times removed by decisions made in far away offices by people they will never meet. This is where the commissioning of art should be made; these are the stories and histories that need to be told now and preserved for the future.

This isn't to say that its only the underclass that should be producing revolution art. Everybody has a stake. Everyone has a piece of the story. I think the fact that art can be found everywhere and in everything today gives us a profound advantage in a competition with those brilliant artists of the Renaissance. Aesthetics and art are found in everything from the design of mundane tools to advertising postcards to the painful words told in a poem at a small coffee shop. The ubiquity of art created by anyone with something to say finally has placed art in its proper place'everywhere.