Do you think that art should question the status quo? Do you think that protest art reaches a large enough audience to be effective? Why or why not?

Art could question the status quo, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should, and protest art doesn't always have to reach a large audience to be effective. Artists express themselves in very different ways with their art...art is sometimes made to make a powerful statement, sometimes it's to tell a story, sometimes it's to portray the artist's thoughts, sometimes it's simply for practice, or sometimes it's just to make something that's aesthetically pleasing. Art doesn't have to make a powerful statement about the status quo for it to be considered art. Art that does portray deep implications is of course thoughtful, beautiful, and inspiring...but artists shouldn't necessarily feel the need to portray this in there art. In simpler words, artists shouldn't use their art to question the status quo if they don't want to do so, but artists should use their art to question the status quo if they do want to do so. Most protest art, in fact most art in general, doesn't often reach a large audience at all. However, protest art will often significantly impact the few individuals who do see the piece. Though the artwork will often not by any means move the masses, the art is still effective. The art, though impacting a minisule number of people, will get those people to think about and question the issue being portrayed with the art...and will perhaps even change minds and sway opinions. If a piece of art has an impact on even just a single person, that piece of art is extraordinarily effective.