The modern world is fuelled by the growing to the limit of absurdity desire for novelty, whose thoughtlessness shifts our attention away from any quality. We automatically associate new with better – more perfect, more beautiful, more exciting etc. These positive impressions make our appetite intensify more and more acutely and we easily lose ourselves in the constantly accelerating chase for pleasure resulting from experiencing or possessing the new. Only when we stop for a moment, we gain the opportunity to see from a distance that these tendencies have turned into an idolatrous cult of newness. None of its believers no longer reflects on its purpose and cause –innovation put on a pedestal ceased to be a concurrent feature, a side effect of elevated endeavours or a means conducive to their accomplishment, whereas it became its own highest purpose and cause, a value in itself.
These general observations refer to various realms of life, and especially to the art world. In the time of absence of explicit criteria for evaluating an artwork (because everything is allowed in art, after all), it is common to use primarily the criterion of innovation. However, while innovation is one of the features that invariably characterise the work of great artists throughout history, it is forgotten that it is neither the only nor definitely the most important one. The total focus on isolated innovation turns into a caricatural fixation when both creators and the art establishment chase after anything that seems at least a little different from what we already know. Then the depth of content, emotional resonance, and artist’s skills are not important – the only thing that matters is the aftertaste of novelty. We have to realise that in such an approach, innovation is grasped in a distortional way, and this, in turn, requires of us thinking about what innovation essentially is.
Genuine innovation is not about newness for newness and should not be an aim of artist’s pursuits. Instead, it arises from sincere seeking and attempts to capture the essence in art in a way, which is appropriate for the times of its creation. Such innovation is somewhat an unintentional result of mature artistic endeavours. It changes thinking, introduces new intellectual and artistic qualities, develops human sensibility, bringing us closer to the essence.
If someone does not have the potential to become an innovator, despite all efforts they will not become one for a simple reason: innovation created in a forced way is not innovation. It does not introduce any significant values or qualities. It neither stimulates the intellect nor affects the soul. It does not contribute to the growth of art. It is merely a meaningless game of doing something “a little differently” than the others, whose only fruit can be a delusive plaudit.
In the currently dominant tendency to assess art in terms of innovation, it can be seen that many times one forgets that every novelty is assimilated over time. Innovations, which were scandalising several dozen years ago, have already expanded the resources of tradition. Often, both artists and people allegedly promoting new currents in art propagate attitudes that have been long since played-out, stubbornly reading freshness into them, which, however, has already faded away a long time ago. And because controversy (which is a derivative of innovation) is a valued commodity in the modern art world, the audience is flooded with creations that are supposed to shake it somehow. Nevertheless, these “controversies” are cheap tricks that long ago have ceased to shock anyone who had had even a little contact with contemporary art before – they at most cause shrug and boredom. Why?
Most of “rebellious” artistic attitudes promoted as bold and innovative are… already academic. However, many creators and the art establishment apparently do not see it. For example, nudity in performative arts (and other) has not been breaking a taboo for several decades – on the contrary, it is now a symptom of contemporary conservatism and academism. It is a proven means, which has been absorbed by the mainstream a long time ago. Same as opposition to beauty (about which I have written more >here<) or any conventions, explorations of various dimensions of the physiology of the human body, subject matter arousing strong emotions, ready-made, the sloppiness of form, and many, many other. So let us not pretend that attitudes based on them are fresh and testify to the unique individuality of an artist because this is simply not true. They are based on easily accessible, tried moves, which are infallible means to create something that can be unproblematically accepted by the artistic community. Therefore, thoughtless basing one’s own work on them would be a manifestation not so much of innovation as of conformism.
Problems related to the cult of novelty are not de facto new because many artists have already succumbed to its delusive seductiveness during the last century and many have also written about it. So it seems that we do not draw the right conclusions and there is still a long way to go to achieve cultural maturity. Firstly, we need to realise that in order that newness can really enrich us – both individually and in the universal human dimension – we must cease uncritical acceptance of everything that is eulogised as innovative. The blind pursuit of the alleged novelty will not do any good for us. So let us start with reflecting whether a given newness is really new and what is its purpose and meaning.
