Innovation is both about play and relevance. As the artist makes the
world in his or her own image we see things anew in the Poundian sense,
or at worst we avoid the boredom of seeing things as they always were.
If we interpret progress as "relevance" then artists within Western
culture feel the imperative to remain contemporary. Things don't get
better, and for my part, we should avoid discussions of whether things
work in their own terms (isolated) and look at how they relate to our
contemporary experience, their authenticity if you like?
Arvon wrote:
> Robert wrote
> >Can there be innovation without progress? Does art get better? Or is
> this
> an attitude or a stance for the artist?
>
> 'Art' is most simply a codification of perception/'imagination' -- a '
> way
> ' of seeing and a system of communication that lets "us" discuss "it"
> with
> "others"; it cannot in itself "get better", only ways of seeing &
> means of
> discussion get better, which makes it entirely dependent on the
> attitude or
> stance of the artist. "Progress" doesn't equate with "better".
> Innovation
> in art should be taking place entirely independently of "progress" and
>
> "better".
--
All the best
Christopher
===============================================================
Christopher Emery
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|