Thus, Art has its own built-in limitations. Despite the fact that its indirect source may be from the Universe (God), insofar that the Soul is the main proprietor of it, which partakes of the exchange of ideas and concepts on a Universal level, it is both created by humans and indulged by humans.

It could be said that Art could save the world, if in fact the people who made Art wanted it to. Therefore, it is not necessary for the people who make Art to want to save the world. Those are just grandiose notions typical of democratic human behavior. It would even be enough just for those who make Art to want the Art, by manner of its inherent virtues, to save the world. But not even this is the case. Unfortunately, it is the situation that Art is not served as a means to worship God, or His Universe, but rather to serve the self and its expression, or to serve the technical and scientific study of Art techniques.

A perfect example in this case is Picasso. A man, who by all given rights, possessed the characteristics of a demi-god. His enormous abilities presented him with great fame and wealth. He was a great Artist. However, his human limitations prevented him from realizing God, which it could be fancied that it was God who sent Picasso to us. Had he held a firm faith in God, he could have reached much greater spiritual levels. But due to this, he would have been limited by his contemporaries, who found it a form of provincialism to hold faith in God. Thus, he would not have achieved the material success that he did, ironically, the very purpose for which he was sent by God.

In a more general sense, we see that Art is pursued by a flock of blind people, instead of by prophets and wise men, who would do much more justice to Art than the common man. I say common man, because the average artist is more concerned with his self-contained world, than with the world he was chosen to serve. Many artists find it romantic to indulge in ribaldry and depression. They find solace and self-gratitude in such notions, typical of the "over-worked" borgiouse class of people. In these self-serving manners, Art will never reach its potential to save the world, but it gives us hope of such an end.

For the most part, Art is made popular by the Borgiouse class, made known for its Western European ideals of greed, materialism, scholarship without wisdom, and exclusiveness. In this manner it can be predicted that only those belonging to a certain social class or status, or possessing of the proper diploma or image will achieve success in the Art world. This is to say that they will achieve immediate material success, not the spiritual enlightenment that is neccessary to save the world. Such people as implementers of Art will never save the world, for they hold in themselves no interest in the world, or in its Creator, God. But as their successes float down to the public in the visual world around us, we are provided with hope for a better end.

Art wishes to save the world. It wishes to save the world from its evils, from the evils of men, and to end the evils that man performs on himself. Art could save the world, if the people who made it wanted it to. However, we must not forget that the world is worthy of Art, for they both come from the same source, the Universe. Humans were also created from this same cloth. In this we find hope, that we should partake in this scheme, before it is we, the world, who becomes unworthy of Art. To reach such a point would also mean the end of the world, for our evils will have reached the magnitude to make us an unworthy people, even in the face of our Creator.

1998.-VI-12./Bp. Dániel Magyarossy