endless, and now monotonous, tinkering with form and efforts to be
ever more novel or revolutionary. Impressionism, Expressionism, cubism,
futurism, serial music, surrealism, symbolism, pop art, etc. Here
you have composers and artists who are constantly under the gun to
radically innovate in the formal sense or simply be deemed irrelevant.
And they are necessarily wedded to a linear, forward-driving "progress"
that views the future as ever more enlightened than the present or
the past. Art transformed into science, so to speak.
I find this Weltanschauung to be highly questionable, especially when
even sophisticated audiences begin to lose interest and have to be
cajoled and reassured that it is only because they are such boobs
and so challenged in
sense that they don't "get it"~"but in the meantime, do write another
check to support our arts group, and thus, art as such."
This just seems to be too easy an "out" for an artist who might in
fact simply be untalented, inartistic and a bore.
That is why I try to counter this tendency by demanding that art be
emotionally engaging and attract a non-professional audience.
Yes, I agree that art has certain natural elitism that does not fit
in well with mass society and democracy.
The artist, after all, is supposed to a talented genius, not a typical
person. He is supposed to see what the rest of us can't see, and translate
it into something that we find