So in the grand scheme of the art world I thought this article most informative. It suggets that pop culture (the art world is no exception) "...reveals that fashions come and go at a surprisingly regular and predictable rate, which is fueled by very few innovators amidst millions of people copying each other." Further the market is capricious "...the practice, common among captains of the fashion industry, of trying to handpick the next consumer “gems” amongst millions of proposals is a hopeless undertaking." It's kind of like Artnews' cover story on The New Abstraction - which turns out to be the same old players once again - (I swear they run this "New" change crap every few months, but continue to promote the same old tired POMO painting.)  "Even with the unpredictable outcome, the advantage of the change-dominated world of fashion is that “change” is the commodity and if you want to sell, it’s the required ingredient." So according to research - change is the selling point. But the hard part of change is determining whether its cyclical or an actual shift. I guess that's found in the innovators (how do they get chosen?) and what they are proposing. I wanted to read the research paper but it costs 30 bucks and quite frankly I need my lattes - so this will have to do for now. If  remember right Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this years ago in The Tipping Point - great book by the way.... I thought I'd tip a point with Goya's famously naked Maja - it's got nothing to do with anything above...or does it?