The Importance of History?

As another entry in what is becoming a general theme, I have been wondering about the importance of tradition and history in the transmission and creation of knowledge. This comes from a few different sources, primarily two books I've finished or about to finish: Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance (a history of the development of the Pencil, and of engineering in general), and Blue: the Murder of Jazz. In particular, to me, is this question: does the reliance on tradition and history ultimate advance or impede the development of new ideas and innovations?

By inclination and general assumptions, I want to first come down on the side of tradition. I mean, my personal training is in Fine Arts Printmaking, and can trace my heritage back a few hundred years. This tradition informed the techniques and methods I learned, the influences I absorbed, and the art I subsequently created. Like a traditional guild artisian, I learned the craft under the hands of "masters" (in these days called "professors"), who passed on general knowledge and personal techniques for success. This is how knowledge was passed down for hundreds of years - masters who took younger craftsmen under their wings and created an environment for them to be indoctrinated in the mysteries of the craft. Our modern school system, in general, is simply the institutional extension of the apprentice relationship. At least, it was till the last 50 years or so.

However, both Blue and Pencil show flaws in this structured learning. Pencil illustrates the problems and roadblocks caused by this tradition in pencil innovation: the blind adherance to old, outdated methods, the use of secrecy to prevent expansion of the industry, and the rejection of new ideas based on traditional preferences. Blue portrays a more scathing picture: that of a jazz community so committed to its tradtional past that it was losing the innovative qualities and attitudes that made it so vital to 20th Century American culture. While both books do celebrate the repective traditions, they also show that over-adherance leads to stagnation and marginalization.

So, where does the most innovative paths lay? Certainly, it seems that those who push a medium forward are those who break from tradition and try "the unthinkable" (as Buddha says, kill the teacher). Yet without a tie to one's past, one can blindly muddle forward making the same mistakes as one's predecessors. So how does one walk the tightrope between repecting the past while breaking with it to explore the new? Any ideas?