questions

if the historical avant-garde was meant to be an alternative to the status quo, why is it that i can remember their names and artworks more readily than anyone else from that time? does that mean they've become the status quo or alternatively that this has primarily to do with my interests? maybe it's time to stop appreciating these kinds of art as rebellious and to put it back into historical context and look at, for instance, where it has led (in terms of the art market, etc)? am i the only one who thinks it's time to kill john cage? (to answer my own question: no, tino sehgal, in conversation, once said something similar, but much milder, being the gentleman that he is)

-SA