|
|||||||||
Well, of course they don't; why would they? But they don't have a choice in the matter. All they can do is compensate for those unpleasant consequences in various ways -- by being deliberately outrageous and politically controversial, by cutting an eccentric figure, by using their charisma to gain a cult-like following. Or by just not caring that much (e.g., Charles Ives.) All of these things and more have been tried in the last 120 years or so. Oscar Wilde would be a good example of someone who did this. And one the consequences he faced for "living his dream" was going to prison for sodomy. 
|
Now we have the academy to do the compensating for us. Our "rebellion" has become institutionalized, a new "profession". We artists can jump on the academic bandwagon, get the requisite seals of approval, have tenure and a secure income and retirement, and have a ready-made and largely captive audience. Or not. I myself think this turning of "rebellion" into a Ivory Tower profession is a travesty, a joke. It is a perfect example of what Marcuse called repressive desublimation, or to put it more bluntly, selling out. How these people can take themselves seriously is beyond me. I imagine a lot them have bad marriages, or drink too much. Or maybe their kids hate them. Who knows?  |
||||||||
