Art in Life and Life of the Art

The big question posed is whether culture is the service of the arts or is art is the service of culture. The situational interventions of Guy Debord make society question that ideology of a bourgeios happiness that has been created by the ruling class. What seems to be important is that we find new desirable ways of living in our capitalist culture with the help of art that seeks to bring about new realities that have not previously existed and to redefine what is already present. As Debord states, "What we see in the streets is more important than painting." Contemporary art seeks to be in the service of societal life/culture. Being that contemporary art is in the service of culture, the spectator (or audience) should transform from a passive viewer into an active participant with a heightened level of experience. Instead of the genius of the artist being separate from the audience, a lateral hierarchy is promoted for an equal integration of all participants. Whether this participation is peaceful or violently brings about uncomfortable feelings of discomfort and anxiety, art can be used to show the possibilities of how we have become passive and how we can possibly change the role of the bourgeoisie. The possibilities of art to be able to change the existing social structure in a capitalist society is a new liberating and truly democratic form of art. Participating to stop oppression, stereotypes, and other unsophisticated forms of thinking can be revolutionary. As Adrian Piper states, "Get Down and Party Together!" Can culture exist for the better with an actively, energized participation? Can art possibly be used to politically takeover the current hegemony that has made us passive beings for so long? Will this takeover just be another form of dominant ideological, single-minded views or can we live within a society of pluralistic ways of thinking?