Marketing Versus Making- Does New Equal Good?

Yesterday, I shared the article about a crowdsourced opera in Finland. I asked whether it was a gimmick, or a good marketing ploy. And, whether they were actually focused on making art, or making buzz.

So today, I’ll address the other issue Farin raised when she and I discussed this. Are only “new” works good/interesting/buzz-worthy?

Farin: I get it, but I'm sort of done with people going so over the edge with this stuff- especially when there are fabulous new operas being written by more traditional composers, that aren't getting produced simply because they're traditional! Ah well. Anyway, thanks for sending this to me, it was interesting to read!
Nicole: I hear ya. Do you mind if I use our conversation for a blog post?

So, what say you? Do traditional works not merit attention? Does there have to be an element of technology, 21st century or pop culture reference to make a new work valid? Does new or contemporary automatically equal good, or at least better than old or traditional? Are new works interesting to audiences, yet terrifying to the institutions/companies producing them? C
heck out today's post on New Film versus New Theatre over at Theatre and Politics by Matthew Freeman.  It is a bit of a double-standard! Any thoughts as to why?