Innovation and Traditionalism in Art

I am sure that we have all, at one time or another, noticed that almost any discussion concerning the merits and demerits of art, if it goes on long enough will come to the qualities of innovation and traditionalism in regards to aesthetic value. As soon as these two qualities are mentioned, there comes an inevitable forming up of those who favor innovation and deride tradition and those who favor tradition and deride innovation. Either side usually admits only enough merit to their opposition, and limitation of their own view, to make themselves seem reasonable and objective: but the bulk of their effort goes into savaging their opponents and extolling the ultimately ascendant nature of their position. I am inclined to take neither view, but to propose a third. It is not enough that we should pursue either innovation or traditionalism simply because we have some sort of aesthetic attraction to them, such as, for example, sentimentality or novelty. There may be those who would respond that there is simply no arguing about taste: that you like what you like and that is that. Certainly such people are right in one sense, but this response seems too simplistic and of a ‘sour grapes’ nature to convince me that this is the end of the matter. Rather, I suggest, it is the purpose to which we apply either innovation or traditionalism which dictates whether or not they have aesthetic merit: too often, our adherence to either of the two qualities becomes a thoughtless habit of our culture rather than anything useful in itself. In order to prove the viability of this qualification, I will first explore the negative and positive qualities of innovation, and the possible causes thereof. Then I will look at the negative and positive qual...

... middle of paper ...

...wild beast, a tiger or some such, with whom I am trapped in a small room. There are many factors which may influence the tiger in one way or another, and while these factors, such as my experience of tigers (traditionalism), or clever new ways to influence them (innovation), are of deadly importance, the tiger remains the primary focus, or reality, in the room. Often, however, we confuse the factors for the art itself, the means for the ends, the cause for the effect. We talk of our difficulty about defining art in empirical terms, as if it were an elusive fog of wraiths, a "veil of unknowing", or an ethereal mist of fleeting experiences: we are unable to ever really grasp the identity of what we seek to define. Maybe this is true, but every now and again I am sure I see something strangely beautiful, terrifyingly real, gracefully elusive, gliding through the vapours.