Killer Innovations: reblog

In the current issue of The New Republic, art critic Jed Perl complains that too much money washing into the art world has swept away traditional benchmarks of aesthetic value. Instead, the art world is consumed with "laissez-faire aesthetics," defined by a belief that the value of a painting or other artwork is "simply what everybody or anybody says it is." (This isn't good, if that "everybody or anybody" is some recently-minted Russian petrodollar billionaire, or someone else who lacks a sufficient amount of art-world snobbery to appreciate a truly great work of art).

Anyway, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the article in its "Informed Reader" column of January 29, hinting that throwing money at art isn't really a good thing, since it tends to erase the distinction between high art and pop culture (think Harley Davidson exhibits at the Guggenheim, or Star Wars exhibits at the Brooklyn Museum of Art). Art is at risk of being turned into something along the lines of TV, as galleries and auction houses cater to the lowest common denominator. Instead of being an object of private contemplation and appreciation, art is at even greater risk of being turned into an object of personal conspicuous consumption. No longer able to make the distinction between "pop art" and "high art," we will be forced to use price as our only guide.

Anyway, I wonder if an analogous case can be made for the world of innovation. Is "laissez-faire innovation" sweeping away all notions of what separates "great" innovation from "good" innovation or "average" innovation. All innovation is good, as long as companies are willing to pay for it?

[image: The Art of the Motorcycle at the Guggenheim]