I am not looking to start another discussion on what is art or what is beautiful? However, it may be worth reflecting that art in history appears only to have progressed in the violation (at least to some extent) of prior norms. Can we can run out of norms? Are we inherently conservative in that we will always construct 'norms'? Does this come some way in clarifying the popular notion of postmodern relativism. Postemodernism rather as an anti-conservative conservatism (echoing Gadamer's prejudice against predjudice)? I don't want to reduce this to mildly clever sayings. However, if art's intention is to evoke then what is the next significant norm to be violated?
Joel, if you are reading this I am sure you can think of some 'shocking' musical forms. Is there any currency left in travelling that road short of commiting ritual human sacrifice on stage?
Is there space for violating violation and offering explicitly conservative contributions (that are in no way associated with the popular notions of 'right wing')?
As I am reflecting on it I wonder if my comments relate only to the modern period. Did antiquity embrace conservative aesthetics? Or were their conflicts more tied up in the prophets and the myths?
Updated: Thursday, 1 December 2005 7:04 PM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink | Share This Post