What a breath of fresh air Grumps...please keep posting in similar vein.Depends how far you want to go back?
Orwell and his split personalities?
Sartre et al and his/their existentialist/feminist-marxist-Freuduan philosophies and manifestos?
Arnold and his jobsworths' chums dicking about with the very structure of English by applying a Latinate/pseudo mathematical logic on a still active Germanic-rooted language thereby changing the subconscious structure of English speakers' reasoning?
Further back to Aphra Behn, Will Shakespeare, et al versus Kit Marlowe* and Philip Sidney: both camps attempting to codify divergent moral compasses on dissolute, free-booting, chaotic post-religious/monarchical revolutions as perhaps, exemplified in say The Tempest: the battle for the soul: the morality of colonisation, exploitation and enslavement of non-Christian, uncivilised inhabitants and the not-understood, primitives' society's eventual destruction of the recently discovered lands?
Or further back to Sir Thomas Moore and the desperate yearning for a Utopia which ran counter to his societal and concurrent corporeal state....?
The Arts and "artists" (sic) have always competed to have their morality/message become the dominant zeitgeist of the moment to the immediate future.
Unlike science, the Arts are totally Darwinian in thoughts, images and words because they [subliminally and overtly] shape our world and its possible futures.
Ya pays yer wonga and yer chooses yer ideology, whether you realise it or not.
So, yes, that's exactly what happens: each art [and its message] and its future builds upon the provenance of the art created or destroyed under it. It's called culture - popular or not.
*Marlowe lost by the way; as did Sydney, who was destroyed by living up to his romantic delusions.
Edit forgot me footnote