Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Do you think there's a difference between money-grubbing hacks who are later recognised as great artists (eg Shakespeare and Dickens) and authors who self-identify as "artists" rather than crass commercial hacks?
|
I wouldn't describe them that way
Look for example at the historic evolution of writing. Before the 19th century, authors were either rich and noble or had someone rich and noble who gave them money to make their art. But then authors rised, who lived from their work directly. Many were also journalists. Another very important factor at the beginning of modern literature was Kant and his definition of art as purpose free (sorry, I don't know the correct english term). And born was the neverending discussion about purity of art. There is some flawed thinking in it, but it goes a little bit like: If something is popular, there must be some compromises there to please the masses. It is not real art.
Bordieu describes a fascinating double economy, that tries to hide that money is made with literature (there wouldn't be any literary publishers, if not).
What is taught at schools and universities, what is generally accepted as literature is an ongoing discurse. Hard to say who gets recognized. Definitions of literature change and are in conflict.