Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sarramkrop
I think time is the ultimate judge in all this, even though a combination of time + exposure is what really defines the legacy of a work of art. In saying that, it's also true that time without exposure puts brilliants works of art in the shade, so stuff that might have had bigger impact remains unseen/unheard.
|
Indeed. Although I tend to disagree with things being 'ahead of their time' some things can attain a new kind of relevance (albeit only coincidentally). Look at the way in which, for example, the events of 9/11 have inspired a surge of interest in Islamic art within the Western art establishment. This has nothing to do with any innate quality within the art itself so much as it suddenly seeming more relevant to our time than it did, say, ten years ago - when such exhibitions were far more rare than they are now.
As such, Islamic Art is now being taken seriously (a good thing) in a way that it probably wouldn't have been the case had events not transpired in the way they did (a bad thing).
My point is that the exposure (or not) of different kinds of art is dependent on the contingencies of history far more than it is issues of 'greatness' ... whatever that may be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sarramkrop
To get back to the question on the first post, I don't think bands only form with the idea of replicating things from the past, some people are propense to play that way and are succesful at pulling it off because they have sincere motivations and talent to back them up, others do it because the want to get rich on the back of a style of music they see as the prominent revival of the day, therefore an almost guaranteed cash cow, so they end up sounding lame.
|
I think you can look at that on a more individual level. I think some people feel comforted by the past and quite disturbed by the present. Equally there are people who find the past something they want to flee from and so put a special emphasis on the present. this can often be the result of issues in their private life (a tramp probably has a far rosier view of the past than someone who had a bad childhood, for example - and vice versa). I think it's fair to say that anyone who fetishes either the past or the present ends up compromising the potential scope of their creativity as a result - nostalgia being just as great a crime against the making of art as neophilia (I think).