Haring was definitely a mainstream phenomenon, not limited to the gay crowd at all. And by the way, the work that he was most proud of was the crawling baby.
Sure, it sold a lot. But how many people actually made it all the way through that pile of steaming dreck?
Mark Twain was quite popular in his own time. Rafael Sabatini was as well.
The Simpsons, Beethoven’s Ninth, the Sistine Chapel, “Starry Night”… One of these things is not like the others.
I’ve always been fond of Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe series.
Charlie Chaplin’s silent films became popular the world over. You could still see them being shown in Bangkok on something called a Microbus in the 1990s. Microbuses were a private city bus company that tried to offer extras like that to justify their higher fare price. And there used to be a regular American columnist in the Bangkok Post named Bernard Trink. One week, he reported seeing large posters of Adolf Hitler for sale in a popular department store here, back in the 1980s. He asked the clerk why on earth they were selling those and was told: “Because he was a very funny man.” Trink could only speculate that they had mistaken Hitler for Chaplin.
The wife and I have always liked Van Gogh. She’s even been to his museum in the Netherlands. And I think another one in Jerusalem? (Or maybe it was just an exhibit in Jerusalem at the time. Otherwise, why would there be a Van Gogh museum there?)
You’re right. Three of them are examples of art and the other is a building. 
So are you saying that satire cannot be great art, or that The Simpsons are not great satire?
I think it’s possible, but extremely unlikely, that satire would be great art, since I would argue that great art transcends the time and place of its creation, whereas satire is generally too enmeshed in the milieux from which it arises/to which it is reacting to have that kind of transcendence. Dr. Strangelove holds up pretty well, but enjoyment requires some understanding of the cold war; Gulliver’s Travels is another exception that has lasted even longer.
I’m also not sure “The Simpsons” counts as great satire. Sure, it’s a funny show now, but will it hold up in 100 years, 50 years, or even 10 years? I’d say “no, no, and probably not.”
This was damned near everywhere in the late 60’s-early 70’s.
The Simpsons came out in 1989 and still maintains its popularity; its interest has already lasted 20 years. Why not ten more?
It was named Best TV Show of the 20th Century by Time magazine at the turn of the millennium.
Far be it for me to argue with Time magazine – but I can’t help but feel like I’m being whooshed here. “The Simpsons”? Great art? really?
IMHO, great art should speak deeply and movingly to the human condition, and to the human being’s position in the universe. The three examples I tossed off – Beethoven’s Ninth, the Sistine Chapel, and “Starry Night” – all do that.
“The Simpsons,” IMHO, does not.
It may be a popular TV show, but it’s popular within a fairly narrow demographic – I don’t think it has a huge viewership over the age of 40, and the cutoff may be more like 30. I’m 54, and though I watched “The Simpsons” for the first couple of seasons, I lost interest, and after the third or fourth time they changed nights (you young uns may not recall how often it moved around the schedule before settling on Sunday night) I stopped watching. The show just wasn’t good enough for me to care.
Po-tay-to/po-tah-to – if you really think “The Simpsons” is great art, bless your heart, but I really can’t take the assertion seriously.
This may be it: the Simpsons got good starting around season 4. For a couple of years onward it was hands down the best thing on TV - fresh multi-level satire that bears repeated watching like few other shows before or since.
I think pointing out the foibles of humanity is a pretty insightful look into the human condition.
I don’t have any hard numbers on the viewership of The Simpsons, but I’d say the average viewer of the show is in their early 30s (being 10-12 when the show debuted) with plenty more in their 40s and beyond (The Simpsons was very popular with college kids from the beginning).
As for the show’s “time slot jumping”, this young 'un might just have a big better of a memory of that than you do. Season 1 aired on Sunday. During seasons 2 through 5, the show was shown on Thursday. Ever since the beginning of season 6, it has always aired on Sunday. So it moved once and then it moved back to it’s original timeslot.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t recognize Pre-Raphaelite art as a movement, and most people are able to describe at least one painting (usually the Lady of Shallot, or “chicks in flow-ly clothes”). Small prints of these have been visible as cubical decorations in every office I’ve worked in.
I think it’s fair to say Puskin created great literature. In his day, he was admired and praised by the high-brow critics but was also extremely popular among ordinary people. He was the leading ‘celebrity’ of his day, and very much the ‘talk of the town’ (at least when he could be in town, and wasn’t either exiled or placed under a form of artistic house arrest). Today, his masterpiece Eugene Onegin is still widely popular and admired, although understandably his fame diminishes the further you get from Russian cultural influence. Tchaikovsky’s operatic adapatation of this fantastic story is still performed all over the world, and a truly impressive (if sadly neglected) movie version was made as recently as 2000.
I’d also like to nominate Emily Bronte for Wuthering Heights and Joseph Heller for Catch-22. Great art that continues to enjoy widespread popular acclaim.
From TV: Seinfeld and The Sopranos were both popular and great shows.
Movies: Pulp Fiction was really popular and groundbreaking.
Groundbreaking artists break ground because they confound critical expectations, not in spite of it. Charles Dickens wasn’t considered serious literature until maybe the 1940s, nor JRR Tolkein until certainly after I graduated from college (mid 80s). If my father were still alive, he’d be shocked to hear that Jim Thompson is a critical darling, Booth Tarkington isn’t, James Thurber is just barely hanging in and Jerzy Kozinski is virtually forgotten.
Duke Ellington got his critical due about thirty years later than he should have, and a bit after his commercial peak. Vonnegut’s critical and commercial peaks pretty much coincided.
I think **Fawlty Towers **will still look wildly funny TV in 50 years time.
**Casablanca **is still a great movie.
I’ll bet I would still find the best silent movie classics hysterically funny.
Reynolds & Gainsborough were fashionable society painters of their time. Their work is still popular.
Yeah, I think The Simpsons does a pretty good job of all of that. YMMV.