- Did not the artist/creator have control over the ideas and objects that he/she produces?
- Kubler's formalism which suggests that I am bound to the past, implicitly states that I can only create based on what has come before. Does not the wide expanse of my imagination have complete freedom over the things I create? Which objects or persons 'tell' me what I think about or imagine?
- Maybe Kubler's theory was correct for art before the Avant Guarde, perhaps before the Impressionist abstractions, but not now? If anything contemporary art is existentially about the new, the different.
Kubler was interesting in understanding art history, Kubler was after all a Mesoamerican scholar, but modern art, not so much.
Then while studying linguistics, I discovered that language changes in a fairly predictable way and that it too has a 'life of its own' relatively independent of the culture or people that use it.
Outside of linguists there is a myth that language reflects the culture of its speakers. It does to a certain extent but for the most part why a culture speaks its language is arbitrary. For example, languages are affected more by which languages surround it and how many people have to learn it as adults than any forced cultural manipulation. Sure new words are created or existing semantics broaden to express culturally important ideas, but the structure, grammar and sounds of a language have little reflection on the culture which uses it. Language morphology (or form based change patterns) is so consistent, perpetual and culturally irrelevant, that through the study of related languages one can determine their age and the migration patterns of its speakers. To some extent one can even recreate the original dead language in which it evolved from.
Somehow, the idea that form might follow parallel tendencies might not be so far fetched; so much for being in control.