Quote:
|
NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art.
|
In another sense though --
If a piece of art becomes well-known, and is thought to be important enough to pay attention to, it actually then contributes to all future art.
When someone sits down to write music, or a novel, or paint a landscape, they start with what they know, which is roughly a summary of everything that was well-shared and appreciated in history.
All western music was changed by Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. Were there better writers than McCartney/Lennon, yes but they won't have changed all music. And so in 100 years their music is likely to sound seem uninteresting or even strange.
Doesn't even have to be a hit or a critical success to change everything.
The Velvet Underground and Nico sold 30,000 copies, not enough to even be a minor hit or make any lists. Brian Eno later said "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band."