Intro paragraph....
Of almost all art movements one of the most vilified in present reckoning is that of the Avant-garde. Its critics have called its works unpalatable, self-indulgent, mentally masturbatory drivel. Indeed, much of the Avant-garde is unpalatable, self-indulgent, mentally masturbatory drivel. The Dadaist made a living on producing "art" with as little work possible. Though, what can you expect from a group of people who term their work "anti-art". The avant-garde attemps to blur the line between valid artistic expression and non-artistic expression. This, however, is exactly what it should do. Where would western music be if we did not submit to the slight discomfort of equal temperment tuning? We would be stuck modulating closely related keys and the Sonata, the Romantic Era, Jazz (Among many others) would never had been developed. Where would be Monty Python have been without Ubu Roi and subsequent absurdist works? They wouldn't even exist, let alone be funny. Art has to be recursive, changing its fundamental axioms should be one of its fundamental axioms. Without this, art would stagnate, and people themselves will turn into nothing more than receptacles of easily digestable entertainment.