Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
Art "being" mainstream and being accepted as art by mainstream society are two different things. In the latter context, yes. Remember Lord Byron? Alcoholic womanizing badass outsider that sent monumental shockwaves through the literary world, whose Byronic heroes inspired the entire concept of the anti-hero, in other words arguably the sole originator of the modern cutting-edge in writing?
Byron was a great writer and he was a the bad boy of literature in his time. He was also nothing more than one of the first 'modern' pop culture sensations. Same was Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allen Poe, and Lord Alfred motherfucking Tennyson.
|
There's something interesting in this. It seems in most cases hindsight tells us something was art. Shakespeare is another example. His works, when broken down to their base elements, are gutter tripe pandering to the lowest common denominator, filled with violence, sex jokes, and the like. Critics in his time found him vulgar at best. Yet these days he is considered an important literary influence.
It would seem time is a better judge of these things than any man.
Hybrid Mode
