...the Beatles as an artistic endeavour that was both collaborative and commercially successful...what the artist must fight (is) the mediocrity that the market craves.
Conformity is in, and we elevate the individual much less than we say we do.
I see what you're saying, Gary. However, here are some other ideas:
"In" can't exist without "conformity" they go hand in hand. To be "in" requires the collective agreement of many many people creating a "trend", which becomes mainstream. "We" can't celebrate anything without some level of conformity.
You mention "market". That varies. The "art market" is especially odd. A strange, temporal, rotating search for the 'new', or unique, or novel. However, the larger marketplace is a similar rotation on a larger scale.
Many of our greatest triumphs in creative work are collaborations. And I believe that the greatest yet to come lie in the effort to develop our collaborative power to new heights (in fact, I believe it to be imperative, and to some extent, unavoidable)
However, we should pay careful attention to the language all around us. The very ethos of our culture is in the ideal of the individual, the rebel, the hero, the heretic. We are, by nature a social being. But we have grown within a culture of selfishness. We believe in the one rising above the many. We search for the individual to give credit and glory to. "Who's the Director?", "Who's the star?", "Whose 'signature' design is this?" Somehow, we are not as comfortable finding our glory in amongst the efforts of others.
I've often said that I could sum up American Film in two words:
"One man..."
It sums up a lot of things.