EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE ARTS, Vol. 27(2) 167-171, 2009 Commentaries MAYBE, MAYBE EVEN PROBABLY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY: RESPONSE TO MARTINDALE AARON KOZBELT Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Colin Martindale (2009) presents a stark and pessimistic take on the recent past and future (or lack thereof) of Western poetry, visual art, and classical music. His argument’s impact is heightened by its quantitative heft. Indeed, Martindale’s (1990) seminal work on stylistic change in the arts surely ranks as one of the very greatest achievements in all research on aesthetics and creativity, and I cannot dispute his basic empirical findings. This is particularly true in the domain of the history of poetry, where his innovative computer-based text measures put his claims on a firm footing. The evolution and end of art as Hegelian tragedy follows in this tradition and fulfills what we have come to expect from this eminent researcher: clear, concise, intensely thought-provoking, and provocative; in other words, vintage Martindale. The garbled title of my response reflects my very ambivalent reaction to the article. In broad outline, I agree with many, perhaps most, of Martindale’s points. In particular, the basic antagonism between the pressure for novelty and the need for communication captures many aspects of the essential dynamic of the creator’s dilemma. Moreover, Martindale’s dig against the “hypocritical belief that things such as contemporary ‘happenings’ have the slightest thing to do with art”—echoing comments by the great art historian E. H. Gombrich (2002, p. 268; see also Kozbelt, 2008a)—is, in my view, right on. My concerns fall into two broad categories: first, a domain-general point about a basic premise of Martindale’s argument; second, domain-specific remarks about some of Martindale’s examples. I do not know enough about poetry (especially 167 Ó 2009, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/EM.27.2.h http://baywood.com