Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8445141" data-attributes="member: 177">No, I am not.&nbsp; More importantly, I wonder how one could possibly get that from what I wrote. I am saying that the label (be it &quot;avant garde&quot; or &quot;bohemian&quot; or whatever) doesn't indicate value, any more than &quot;blue&quot; indicates value.&nbsp; Sturgeon's Law applies - 90% of everything is crap.&nbsp; That means that 90% of all avant garde work is crap, such that the label itself can't be a direct line to quality or value.Indeed, none of the things you mention - impressionism, Dada, cubism, etc - are even avant garde any more!&nbsp;&nbsp; Wagner died in 1883!&nbsp; We are well over a century past his work - there is no viable claim that it is on the forefront of art at this point.&nbsp; Avant garde is a temporary status.&nbsp; Eventually that which was avant garde becomes either de rigueur or is consigned to the oubliette of history (because, really, why leave the French descriptors - they are so fancy!). But Wagner is still Wagner.&nbsp; Monet is still Monet. Value does not come directly from being a member of a genre.&nbsp; It comes from the detailed merits of an individual work.Not all of them, no.&nbsp; There were a lot of really crappy Monet wannabees, so to speak.From where I sit, you seem to be conflating, &quot;there is value to be found looking in new territory,&quot; for, &quot;being new is valuable.&quot;&nbsp; They are not equivalent.&nbsp; This becomes clear in the survivor bias in your statement - you mention a cherry-picked list of games that had influence, but you don't survey the games of that school as a whole for all the failed attempts that didn't take hold, and didn't have influence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8445141, member: 177"] No, I am not. More importantly, I wonder how one could possibly get that from what I wrote. I am saying that the label (be it "avant garde" or "bohemian" or whatever) doesn't indicate [I]value[/I], any more than "blue" indicates value. Sturgeon's Law applies - 90% of everything is crap. That means that 90% of all avant garde work is crap, such that the label itself can't be a direct line to quality or value. Indeed, none of the things you mention - impressionism, Dada, cubism, etc - are even avant garde any more! Wagner died in 1883! We are well over a century past his work - there is no viable claim that it is on the forefront of art at this point. Avant garde is a [I]temporary[/I] status. Eventually that which was [I]avant garde[/I] becomes either [I]de rigueur[/I] or is consigned to the [I]oubliette[/I] of history (because, really, why leave the French descriptors - they are so fancy!). But Wagner is still Wagner. Monet is still Monet. Value does not come directly from being a member of a genre. It comes from the detailed merits of an [I]individual[/I] work. Not all of them, no. There were a lot of really crappy Monet wannabees, so to speak. From where I sit, you seem to be conflating, "there is value to be found looking in new territory," for, "being new is valuable." They are not equivalent. This becomes clear in the survivor bias in your statement - you mention a cherry-picked list of games that had influence, but you don't survey the games of that school as a whole for all the [I]failed[/I] attempts that didn't take hold, and didn't have influence. [/QUOTE]

Verification