The Artist

there has been a change in the way artistic genius is been portrayed and explained.
in the past, a brilliant artist was seen as something unreachable, indescribable, who was pretty much above everything.
nowadays it is seen quite different, basically the complete other way round.
if you read some of the newer biographies of bands or artists, it always starts with that there are musical or artistic movements around that were the beginning point, or "spark", of their music. then, or before, usually some social and political events or struggles that were important at that time are added that provide a second part of the framework that they think created the art of the specific band or person.
on a side note, they always manage to center it somewhat all around mainstream music or art each time.
was it an industrial musician? well, "he had one of the more peculiar mainstream bands that had a major influence on him". industrial music gets put in the context of mainstream music in another way too: was it a mainstream musician? "he also incorporated methods of industrial music in his art", and so on. this way, the mainstream always gets a special spot and seemingly no artist could totally break from it (which, in reality, is something that is of course very much possible).
now let's get back to the point. which is that artistic genius works in a complete different way.
artists, when they're good, *break free* from social rules and structures, from existing artistic movement.
they rise to the top. they and their art cannot be sufficiently defined by the movements and their restrictions.
they rise above them. with their art they are outside the common social, political and artistic concepts.

now in the past this was widely known, or at least people were much more aware of it then today.
noone would've defined the classic composers, or authors, as being mere parts of a certain artistic movement, as being a mere representation of social or cultural struggles.
as i said, they were seen as having created something unreachable, and their genius as being indescribable.

similiar, it is highly annoying that artists are placed in a certain time or era. "these type of sonic experimentation by the band is a typical example of the 60s", and such.
an artistic genius, or a genius band, basically never fits to the time they are or were in.
their art is ahead of their time, timeless.

the political and social change and uprisings in the 60s did not bring forth the major rebel artists, authors, activist of that era; *they* did bring forth the social and political movements. they did create the change. without them, the 60s might have been just another boring decade without much going on.

surely, influences from all directions might be an important aspect of art. but it is just that, an aspect.

the artistic genius is above these things.