Erfworld 77, page 71

[teratorn]

No, new = necessary. A work of art (in any medium) that doesn't break new ground, that doesn't break any rules, that doesn't go somewhere that hasn't been explored before, isn't worth bothering with.

Wow, all that certitude. Those sentences are pretty vague and imply that a work of "art" can only be of value when seen against a set of historical records. I don't understand it, do you mean there is no implicit value in a given work unless it is compared with something else? If I like a book, but it tackles the same ground as previous books, are you saying it's worthless, despite the fact that the author shows talent and writes an interesting story?

Novelty is overrated. In Greek tragedies people knew most of the story, and the medium was quite formal. Yet, they are great work, and clearly "worth bothering." Many of those "breaking the rules" works you talk are boring once the novelty ends, Gilgamesh is still a great story even after thousands of years.

But all this talk is a bit pretentious. Maybe Jamie and Rob plan to make an artistic revolution in the graphic novel business but I'm here more for the entertainment value of the thing.