Fernand Leger Influence on modern music video?

Every time we talk about artists and their works in class, we mention how they started something new and changed the direction of art, but rarely do I see these influences in modern art or humanities. This very well could be because I have minimal exposure to modern arts (other than music), or that I just fail to make connections. Today was the exception to that though, when we watched Fernand Leger's Ballet Mecanique, the style instantly reminded me of a music video by the band Underoath. I could be crazy and seeing connections that someone more knowledgeable in humanities would say have nothing in common, but in my mind I could totally see multiple commonalities between this music video and Ballet Mecanique.

The video is not on youtube so I can't embed it into the blog, so here is a link. The video is for the song Writing on the Walls by the band Underoath. http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/Underoath/Writing+on+the+Walls--50971016

     The first thing most people probably will notice is that music is loud and chaotic, and for some that have not been exposed to this genre, it probably seems a little bit overwhelming. There are some sections of the song that are more melodic, but there are also portions that consist of screaming, odd rhythms, and heavy percussion. This sounds a lot like the way the music in Ballet Mecanique would be described. Although there are not guitars, keyboard, or drumsets, it still has a very chaotic and sometimes uncomfortable feel to it. Neither of the two videos are something most people would consider easy to listen to or watch.

     The other aspect of the videos I found strikingly similar is the way they were filmed. I know nothing about film, so there could be a name for this style of video/movie, but I am unaware if there is. One of the first things I noticed about Ballet Mecanique was how random and short each of the clips were. It never stayed focused on one object/scene very long. It constantly is changing images, which adds feeling of chaos that the music is giving off. The scenes were random, and I was unable to pull a meaning or theme from the movie. This is exactly what I got from the Underoath music video as well. It never stayed focused on one scene/image for very long, it was constantly changing to the other things going on in the video. I didn't see any specific meaning in the music video. It was random, chaotic, and far from relaxing to listen to, just like Ballet Mecanique . 

  Call me crazy, but I feel like this Underoath music video is the modernized version of Ballet Mecanique. It had many of the same characteristics as Ballet Mecanique, just adapted to the higher technological level of our society (like electric guitars, electronic keyboard, and higher video quality). The fact that these two videos were made over 80 years apart, yet are very similar, shows how no matter how big if a time gap there is, we still draw influences from the artists that were well before our time. 

Do we not always notice connections like this because we are too blind to see them and don't look for them, but really every new art stems from artists before their time? Or do we sometimes feel like some ideas are completely new and original, not pulling influence from people before them?

Circular Discussion?

This is my first humanities class, and I have never had any interest in any sort of humanities other than music. With that being said, this class is exposing me to a whole new world that I quite honestly have never had a desire to enter. But now that I have to enter this new world, I figured I would at least try to get something out of it.
Since this is all new to me, I am still trying to get an understanding of humanities and what it's purpose is. Throughout class discussion I had a few thoughts that made me question if there really is any point to studying humanities, or at least some aspects of it.
As we were talking about Picasso's paintings, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (the prostitutes) in particular, the class discussion started to go in the direction of questioning whether artists intentionally put very in-depth meaning and symbolism in their work, or if they it is just the audience trying to pull more out of the work than really is there. Sometimes I highly doubt that what we (the audience) think the artist meant is really his/her intent. An example of this would be our class discussion about what Picasso chose the background to be in his painting of the prostitutes. One could make the case that he chose the blue and grey to show that they have a gloomy past, and the the dull fruit represents the prostitutes' potential to live bright colorful lives, but instead that potential to live 'fruitful' lives is gone and their lifestyles are colorless and bland. While that could potentially be what he intended, someone else can just as easily make the case that Picasso did not intend any of those things. It is just as likely that he simply thought it would add nicely to the overall feel of the painting. We will never know what Picasso intended so both ideas are just guesses.

That brings me to my next point... We will never know what the artist intended, so why debate and try to figure out what they meant for the audience to get out of it? We can talk about it endlessly and still never prove on thing or the other.Some artists might paint to satisfy their audience and make a hefty amount of money. Or maybe some artists do not create their works for an audience and use art as an emotional outlet or personal expression. That is yet another question that we can never get a definite answer to. Like we discussed in class, an artist might publicly say they intended one thing, but can you trust them? They could say they meant it to be one thing to satisfy the audience, but in reality what they say could be completely different from what they meant for their work to be.

These thoughts have brought me to the conclusion that since we will never be able to know what the artist meant, there is no point to dig deep and try to figure out exactly what they meant. I feel that art is something that is all about personal preference. It isn't about what the artist meant, it is about the emotion that the art pulls out of you.
Are all discussions about the meaning of artwork pointless and never-ending since we will never find a definite answer?