i like this assessment of our literary moment:
"personally i think this is a period in post avant writing that is most distinguished by consolidation, assessment and refinement rather than breakthroughs, transgressions and innovations. there is no perpetual innovation: at some point one must stop, look around and do some stock-taking, see what the trailblazers have done, what they have left behind, what work can be put to rest and what work still needs to be pursued."
read more here:http://heuriskein.blogspot.com/
i've often felt and feel just the same way. we're more in a period of explore what has been given to us by our predecessors. we aren't innovative so much as refining and building our trails off the main highway. that tends to depress me. i want to be an innovator, a break though genius, but have known for quite some time i am likely not, nor will likely be.
i'm interested in others' thoughts on this.
p.s.: one thought that comes to mind is the questions of innovation and difference. is innovation something to be prized above all else in art? or is it equally as important to simply be different. when i really need to prop myself up with the feeling that my work is in some unique/original, i fall back on the notion that, as a distinct self, i will inevitably say something different simply because i'm me and the me i am has never beeen here before. of ocurse, i suppose that is akin to defending derivative work by simply saying, "but this is my version of such and so's innovation."