It all depends on what you mean by 'great art'
Article in the Guardian 'The Guide' section, which is not online (at least as yet) - it's in the series 'Solved! your crucial cultural questions answered', on the question 'Do uncertain times always result in great art?'
(Historian, remembering an undergraduate lecture during which lecturer on ye medeevles remarked that 'all ages were ages of change', deposeth that all times are probably uncertain for somebody and some sections of the populace, but wotevah.)
The article does point out that any Great Stuff that was produced during Some Period of Upheaval tends to be what goes down in the Annals of Memory and not necessarily the stuff that was, e.g. topping the charts.
As I have, my dearios, remarked on various occasions, what has lasting legs for posterity is not necessarily what is beloved in the immediate moment and the can't keep it on the shelves bestseller, just sayin'.
But I was also given to muse that, it does rather depend on what you mean by 'great art' and sometimes, what we now think of as lasting achievements of their day were the disposable popular entertainment to their contemporaries.
Thinking of uncertain times, such as, o, how about the 1930s? and what are lasting classic and beloved genres and works? the Hollywood musical, screwball comedy, the golden age mystery, the noir thriller in its written form (the movies were somewhat later), some of Noel Coward's most enduring plays. Delafield's Provincial Lady. Winifred Holtby's South Riding.
This entry was originally posted at https://oursin.dreamwidth.org/3101347.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.