"If you close your eyes and picture an artistic genius, chances are that the portrait will be framed by a Romantic ideal that took shape 200 years ago: an artist dedicated solely to his (almost always his) muse and transgressive appetites, breaking his era's rules both moral and artistic, remaking society with his art. But this vision of genius is a poor fit for many great artists, and it tends to obscure what makes them and their work special."
"The man wrote two plays a year for much of his career, worked as an actor, and probably helped manage the theater company in which he was a major shareholder. His work was more conservative when it came to violence and sex than that of his peers. He did not invent any of the major components of his dramaturgy, and he almost always adapted existing source material."
A Romantic ideal of artistic genius, formed two centuries ago, envisions a solitary, transgressive creator who remakes society with art. That ideal poorly fits many celebrated figures. William Shakespeare wrote prolifically, acted, managed a theater company, adapted existing sources, and maintained conservative approaches to sex and violence in his work. He invested wisely, achieved gentleman status, and retired to his hometown, reflecting a conventional career for his class and time. Christopher Marlowe, by contrast, led a brief, stormy life and more closely matches the Romantic image, having pioneered important dramatic forms and transformed the Elizabethan stage.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]