But I don’t think even the Dadaists seriously contemplated ending art – the implications for our values and understanding are too vast, too deep-seated to even make for a coherent proposition. We have too much invested in the arts (not just fine art) to simply abandom them to say, leisure or amusement. But nor can we quite leave them be – anymore than we can accept limitations to science. And for the same reason: the business of making sense of our experiences – for furthering our grasp and appreciation of the world is only fulfilled by adaptation and innovation in art.

Contrary to Auden, I maintain it is impossible to imagine living, in the full sense of the word – which we inherit from the arts – without art. It simply wouldn’t be ‘living’ in any acceptable sense of the word.

There is really only a sort of health to all of these debates, and reassurances. Admittedly, artists may converse with the past canon. I don’t think they are subverting it so much as reflecting the changing world we create. Also, jokes are not just punch lines to be heard only once. Satire is a sort of joke that may make one grimace, but not laugh out loud. Satire has a sting, and sometimes one that is not welcome.

The other function of revolution in art is, as befits our consumer society, a method of debunking the past, of disposal, of changing fashion. Degas is actually closer to Watteau, as is Picasso, when all Picasso wanted to do was be the next Watteau. This is partly because Watteau and the French canon is heavily reliant on charm — something Americans (and Picasso) achieve only rarely, and which feels odd to them, like some kind of servility, or weakness. It is because this charm is outside us, in another country, even, that it becomes dear, and we build collections of it, like an extra bit of cultural DNA, for possible re-inclusion at a later time.

This is only to say that the conversation across time, which art conducts, which viewers enjoy, is part of the immeasurable value of all our art directions. It is the large, networking, cultural construct that measures out the heartbeat of our times. It is never irrelevant; rather, it shows us our preference at any moment, as in Henry McMahon’s preference for continuity and his reassured sense of beauty past continuing in beauty present.

His point about the lesser value of parody parallels the low status of parody in literature. And yet, Shakespeare (the breaker of all rules) wouldn’t be Shakespeare without parody, as well, not to mention punning. So even the lowest form finds use in the wit of the greatest artists.

How about a feature comparing the press release with the review?

But the problem is not new to theorists so much as the gallerists and the illiterate art-schoolers that produce this chichi drivel. The (historical)avant-garde is a contradiction. The Fahamu Pecou painting displays nothing but his own belated aesthetics. Anyone who buys into it is a nonce and a fool.

I appreciate this piece Henry. I hope to read more.

-Ry