Relevance in Art

The only important thing in art is its relevance. Academia tries to build a consensus of relevance, which is why it has weight, but this consensus doesn't always equate to relevance, it is merely a consensus made from the current time and its local constituents. Building a consensus of relevance in this way immediately nullifies it, in the same way that rational understanding bursts the bubble of emotion. Perhaps art should aim never to burst this bubble, or at least be aware of this critical effect. The essence of the romantic, the emotional, is to preserve and feed its feeling using mystery. This is the why academia is never 'cool', on trend, stylish, 'cutting edge'; it is always behind, an analytical tool of judgement. Perhaps this is why critic and artist are necessarily two different jobs. Perhaps even in the act of judging his or her work, an artist causes harm, if judged on a purely rational level.