One of the things this discussion shows is that we have barely begun to study the evolution of the arts.Similar basic principles underlie the evolution of the arts and species and technology - they all for example evolve from the simple to the complex - from systems with simple forms and sets of functions to those with complex forms and sets of functions. Which if you think about is more or less inevitable - you can't start building an extremely complex machine with loads of new inventions from scratch. These principles aren't laws - progress and the next step in evolution aren't guaranteed - but the general drift is bleeding obvious. And those who deny them are wasting time that could be spent studying and understanding them. We are just literally beginning to understand the evolution of technology - Brian Arthur has produced an excellent groundbreaking book on The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves.   http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/arthur09/arthur09_index.html   But he is just opening up a new field.   Isn't it time we had a serious discipline studying the evolution of the arts? With the main focus on how art forms themselves have developed, and the focus only secondarily on the "selection pressures" of audiences/markets/funding (or, God help us, mating) etc. ? 

What good works if any already exist on any aspects of the evolution of the arts?