Good question! It's been I guess historicised as such through 'critics'... but the motifs that would be defined/classified/distinguished as the Baroque movement of art/architecture/music were no doubt emulated by lesser craftsmen - and then adapted by innovators. (Like Electroclash.) With hyper media the time span between the creation and the 'labelling' is shorter. Of course some artists sometimes try and present their art and it gets called something else or contextualised in a way they can't control - Botticelli saw his work as La Prima Vera, the spring, referring partly to the painting that had neo-classical elements romanticised for a Christian viewer, but it's known to us as a work of the Renaissance and he a Renaissance painter. I'm no Fine Arts expert... I find that Derrick & co have a very ambivalent outlook on the very term 'Techno' now in any context - probably as it's been wrestled from their control. That's part of the artistic struggle.
> I'm not too sure as I don't know too much about the subject matter > but was Baroque a movement that defined itself over a (very) short > period of time and was something which artists could easily attatch > themselves too (as in the case of Electroklash) , or was it a term > applied at a later date by historians?
