I should warn any readers that I’m not really convinced of arguments like this but thats not going to stop me from writing them out.
What is the point of innovation if it proves useless to later artists (for artistic or practical matters)? John Cage's 4'33" is a good example of where innovation is useless to later artists. Any type of silence-gesture can not be developed any further. A 13'12" or 1'29" would do nothing to elaborate, expand our understanding of this particular expression, and by definition these pieces would be pure imitation (unless you perceive differences in the length of a piece as furthering artistic expression). Does innovation without any practicality or applicability, innovation that never can be utilized, can that ever be valuable?
If an innovation in the 20th century proves itself as un-used, unexplored, and unknown by more mainstream artistic currents, if the avant-garde explorations are neglected well into the future, lost, forgotten, unimportant to artistic practices, it was in vain. It must cease to be innovative and end as being meaningless exploration. Afterall, how can innovation be that which is never or can never be adopted?
just a few thoughts.
Andy Warhol on Wagner
1 day ago