Innovation and Traditionalism in Art Essay -- Art Artistic Arts Histor

I am sure that we have all, at one time or another, noticed that almost any backchat 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 artistic value. As soon as these two qualities argon 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 tho enough merit to their opposition, and limitation of their own view, to make themselves seem sane and objective but the bulk of their effort goes into savaging their opponents and extolling the ultimately ascendant temper of their position. I am inclined to take n either view, but to jut out a third. It is not enough that we should pursue either innovation or traditionalism simply because we have some sort of aesthetic standoff to them, such as, for example, sentimentality or novelty. There may be those who would se rve that there is simply no arguing about taste that you alike what you like and that is that. Certainly such people are right in one sense, but this response seems too simplistic and of a fictive 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 oblivious habit of our culture rather than anything useful in itself. In order of magnitude to prove the viability of this qualification, I will first explore the disallow and unequivocal qualities of innovation, and the possible causes thereof. Then I will look at the negative and positive qual... ...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 (trad itionalism), or clever unfermented ways to influence them (innovation), are of deadly importance, the tiger remains the chief(a) 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 communion of our difficulty about defining art in empirical terms, as if it were an elusive fog of wraiths, a veil of unknowing, or an aery mist of fleeting experiences we are unable to ever really custody the identity of what we seek to define. Maybe this is true, but every now and once again I am sure I see something strangely beautiful, terrifyingly real, gracefully elusive, gliding through the vapours.