I'd like to
disagree with
alex.tan, that
art does build itself upon
prior knowledge of other
art. At least the
good stuff does. :-)
Let's take painting for example, because I've got nothing else to do. You see a Picasso painting there, it's abstract, kinda messed up, right? Do you think it would have the same importance if it were created now? No. Here's why:
The time in which art is created is often a reaction to whatever was the feelings of the "Masters" before it. We've got the progression from Pieter Brughel, DiVinci, Rembrandt, Monet . . . Picasso, Jackson Pollock, and, well, my roommate.
The development of perspective in art is just like the development of a new idea in physics or biology. A revolution of sorts. (Don't even get me talking about literature and the progression through Realism, Naturalism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Image-Fiction, etc.)
Also, an art which solely has a purpose to distract will be forgotten usually after it's fallen off the Bestseller list. I'm still looking at the Brueghel poster on my wall. People are still reading Chaucer and looking at Roman Architecture. I doubt we'll be saying the same thing about Jewel's poetry. {Wait, we've already forgotten it!}
Okay, an update re: alex.tan's update:
If the distraction is all there is to a work, then it deserves to be forgotten.
The building of the arts is really much more noticable to me since I study literature, probably. I'll node about it later. :-)