…there will be (A)rt, as there always has been Art. This (A)rt will be arrived @ much as Art has always been arrived @, but there will be some salient differences that bear on the seeds from which it is given warp and weft; not to mention the ways in which it will be used.
We suppose that Art has always come-to-be by persons who are just a hair more sensitive to their 'Strange' than the norm. Strange being that unfiltered access to the something within themselves which causes a potential to form between that something, and a medium, where a representation of that tension is tickled into forming and becoming stable enough to see, hear, smell, taste or feel. Way too much verbiage has been expended in homage to this 'Loop' of creativity. I am not a Romantic Poet, a philosopher nor a researcher using function scans to map the regions of the brain that light-up when the Loop is underway; only an artist who is occasionally shocked into making pictures, music, gardens and food that are evidence of a creative process afoot.
Ah yes, back to the seeds. In History, Artists have been trickle-fed creative nourishment - examples of the Loop @ work in the lives of other Artists. Drawing, painting and sculpture were not nearly as available for consumption as they have subsequently become. Art was jealously owned, walled-up in religious institutions and the domains of wealth. An artist in one region of the world was likely unaware of artistic output in another region for all of the obvious reasons. Bach's splendiferous works were likely not played by others let alone seen by his brother and sister musicians until long after he was dust. Works of art were *owned* by whoever commissioned that work and as said, rather selfishly retained. "No need for a copyright, it's MINE!"
Thus, cross pollination was limited to 'schools,' clusters of students and post-students grabbing @ the hems of a 'Name-brand' painter/sculptor, etc. As we know, many works by the 'brand-artist' were in fact executed by the hem grabbers, err students.
In the November 2, New York Times Opinion section, Blake Gopnik came forth with a contrarian view on 'Art' forgery which points-out that a 'benefit' of the practice is that works which might-have-been painted by the inspirer of the 'new' work are painted and as such enrich the oeuvre. Critics of this POV - chiefly an academic, an author currently grinding his axe on the 'values' of connoisseurship and a gent who seems to value money over the art itself, blast away @ this heresy with froth and sweat - (cold sweat) I assume. Frankly, it is very intriguing to consider what budding artists would learn and invariably contribute to the legacy of their inspiration if this practice - as it was in antiquity - were a norm rather than a scam.
As a musician, it is obvious to me that 'The Blues,' 'The Pop Song,' and 'The Rock Opera' are 'styles' that inform current practitioners. While not precisely the same thing as 'doing a Pollack,' many, many acolytes have done work that is a hair more than an homage or a pastiche of a Beatles number. Composers are honored for doing quality 'representation' of seminal work, but coping a Kandinsky is dishonored? Get a life… Yes, I know, the problem is when money and misrepresentation comes into the equation; yawn, nod, nod and caveat emptor.
The long-and-winding-road (hard to avoid isn't it) empties out here… yes, the whole point is this screed is that people producing (A)rt today are exponentially more informed by a variety of sources than ever before (the seeds). Thus, when the subconscious processes which do the mystical part of creation finally vomit the 'notion' which drives an act of creation, there's forging going on. Or call it neural nourishment or creative catharsis, modern creative 'seeds' are the most marvelous things in that the same seed can grow into fabulously variety.