Being a plain Jane

On page 94, Hughes bluntly states that in ancient Greece, the Italian Renaissance, and the Middle Ages, "great art was anonymous." James Hughes, I have a bone to pick with you.

Do you assume that all great art from those times was anonymous? Does that mean that art had to be anonymous to be considered great? Is all anonymous art great?

There's a graphic novel called "The Plain Janes" by Cecil Castellucci. It is set in a modern day high school with four misfit girls: Jane, Jayne, Polly Jane, and Jane. They are the artsy/sporty/smart/shy outcasts and we love them for it! Together, they called themselves P.L.A.I.N. (People Loving Art in Neighborhoods) and go about sharing their creative love with their suburban town. Their first mission is a secret project that they do at night, at the future site of a strip mall. They assemble rocks into three different pyramids, mocking the form and shape and location of the Great Pyramids in Giza, Egypt. They hand two signs. The first says, "Art Saves, Think Big, Think P.L.AI.N. (People Loving Art in Neighborhoods)." The other sign says "The pyramids lasted for thousands of years. Do you think this strip mall will?" Over the next few days and weeks, their capers include putting 10 L of dish soap in the town square fountain, covering the sidewalk in front of the animal shelter with stuffed animals and a sign that says "Adopt a pet!", and covering the town in wrapping paper (a lot like Christo did during the mid-20th century).

It is only through these silent acts that this group of girls find their voices, find out how to survive high school, find out who they really are. Is this level of achievement because of the anonymity of their acts?

Mr. Hughes, on page 91 you say, "It would seem evident that, to be complete, a creative act needs to be brought into the public domain." Even though the Plain Janes's acts are public, their identities are not. Each of these four artists are different. And it works because art is about the individual. Not society.