/lit/ - Literature

>>21710514
Most people can only think in the moment of now, yet many artists were harangued or completely ignored in their own time. Some people like Percy Shelley had some active hostility towards them for radicalism, for instance.
It seems that people forget that artists and writers have always been liminal, socially speaking. Their ideas may not be dangerous, but they might demand to be thought about, which is more than can be said about a lot of art that is "good" for the current era.
Even if we have never had billionaire authors until recently, the influence of art is said to affect ideas about politics. But it is also weird that people have taken it upon themselves to be iconoclasts of once mainstream and accepted opinions. What is the role of the artist in this maelstrom of not only a politicised view of art, but one where its use-value can only be approximated to how many abstract lives it saves from the tyrannies of patriarchy, or whatever? And I don't think it even does that. But the scions of the new era do not view themselves as hypocrites who only yell and blame.