On a recent trip to London, I looked out on the Thames and walked the expansive halls of the Tate Modern museum. As I considered cubism’s impact on the 20th-Century, I was struck by the following passage accompanying a painting by Gino Severini: “Is there any word quite so passé-sounding as ‘futurism?’ ” a commentary asked.

The Italian artist Severini belonged to a group known as ‘futurists.’ But the writer—essayist and novelist Gilbert Adair-- claimed that the problem with this school of art was its lack of foresight. Even as they attempted to “communicate their love of speed and movement…they were ill-equipped to keep up with a world whose technology was evolving infinitely more rapidly” than they were, Adair wrote.

Hmmm. Sounds familiar, I thought. Is this an age-old dilemma that innovators and technologists face in every generation? Isn’t software plagued by new versions and patches coming out before current versions are even in use? And what about consumer technologies and mobile devices with shelf lives a fraction of what they once were? Isn’t this the reason legacy systems will always exist? Is planned obsolescence really a part of some business product strategies?

Adair likened the futurist’s plight to that of the man who spent years inventing the automobile only to be run down by one as he rushed to announce his discovery. Ultimately, he says, instead of impressing us with its advances and novelty, the painting—like many attempts at innovation—is really more of “a document of its own period…an example not of futurism, but of what might be called ‘futurewasm.’”

Not a very upbeat assessment, but it does point out the limitations of innovation—or at least of 20th-century art!

Does the pace of change hinder innovation? Let me know your thoughts…

(And to view the painting, Suburban Train Arriving in Paris, 1915, click here)