--- Tayssir John Gabbour <tayssir.john at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm, isn't it generally the case in art that
> innovation generally
> flows bottom-up from poorer subcultures to the more
> privileged ones?
> (So basically, an Elvis comes along and legitimizes
> the innovation to
> the privileged.)
>
> I'm not an expert on art history, though...
[WS:] it depends how you define "bottom-up." If it means "outsiders of the art establishment" this is generally true almost by definition, as the establishment is defined by continuation rather than innovation. Most of innovation from modern art came from outsiders - often in definace of the establishment (cf. impressionism, fauvism, surrealism, dada).
But if you define "bottom up" as "originating in the so-called unwashed masses" - then I am afraid your statement is demonstrably false and mainly for the same reason as the preceding statement is true - to break a convention one needs to know the convention, and the unwashed masses seldom do. Even the so-called primitive art as a genre (as opposed to individual objects) is a creation of art professionals who discover and legitimize the works of artists without formal training or knowledge of artistic conventions. That is to say, primitive art must first be placed in the context of art institution (e.g. a museum, see for example http://www.avam.org/) to be considered a work of art, let alone innovative one, for otherwise it would not be even defined as art. And that placement in the context of an instituions is usually a top-down process, done by art professionals rather than primitivists themselves.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com