When art can still please us, why should we revolutionize art?

Kandinsky, Moonlight Night, 1907

Why should art change? Because from beginning to end, art has always been ahead of society. Just as Monet Van Gogh walked ahead of the society of the late nineteenth century. Thus we say that when we are confronted with the present society, then there must be an art that has or is about to be produced, and that it is ahead of this society. Whether this art is postmodern or not we are not sure, because whether it is modern or postmodern, they will last a long, long time, just like Byzantine art in the Middle Ages.

When Monet used his paintings to record trains in the first railway station in Paris; when Manet recorded paddle wheels in paintings; when Cherico used trains sprayed with white smoke as a mystery in his surrealist paintings, we say that art was documenting the most advanced technology of the time. By analogy, in this age of information, our art must be as recorded as it was then, and should record the most advanced technology of our time.

However, when the technology is a steam locomotive and a paddle wheel that burns a boiler, it is easy to present the appearance of those technologies on the screen. So in the present, or in the future, a little farther away, how can we use art to record or express our science and technology? This is again a reason why art must move forward.

Art is not only entertainment, it is also a portrayal of the human mind. And, more often, art is an ahead of its time in the human mind. And today's revolution in art requires what many masters of the past, such as Monet, Cézanne, Van Gogh, and so on. Instead of looking back at the past continuously, because it was easier and simpler, it was about looking ahead and exploring, even if the taste was bitter.

Exploration techniques are not on the same level as exploration thought, and the latter requires people who are clear, calm and deep-sighted.