Rock is Dead...Maybe

Certain structures in art are good, because they allow for others to gain an understanding of what’s being expressed. If someone says they’re a jazz musician, or an abstract painter then the listener/viewer is given a cue on how to begin to contextualize the data they receive.

The creative limitation of a genre is how others begin to understand their experience. It provides the arena for which group comprehension and, therefore, action becomes possible. What one person knows becomes transmissible within an environment where rules are clear.

When a form becomes overly strict though, it can signal the beginning of the end. Statements such as “rock is dead” become common sentiments if the form suppresses certain possibilities where nothing new can be said. Of course, this isn’t the only reason advancements in genres slow down. Since it’s hard to think outside the box, offering a new insight becomes increasingly difficult in something that has a long tradition. The classical composer Krzysztof Penderecki is an example of how development is always possible even in a structure that has been around awhile. 

The challenge that all artists face is to contribute a new insight. Derivation is common and easy in comparison and technical proficiency doesn’t change this. A cover band may make more money than Van Gough ever did, but they’re copying doesn’t indicate artistic value or discernment despite the appearance of something creative going on. One has to make what is unknown known. They have to find a way to give a comprehensible voice to the chaos. They have to create new knowledge that has the potential to be communicated to others. This is why great art is hard to come by.