I'd make a secondary argument as well, I think we're experiencing a decline in traditional romanticism. A lot of the arts whether they be artistic or literary were historically supported via patronage. That hasn't changed... much... in the general sense. HOWEVER! The patron has changed! Instead of a few, or a singular, uber patrons content is now funded via a large audience of patrons who are in some way monetized. Art is still art, but the patron is no longer the aristocracy, the intelligencia, or any other group with high social prestige. We know that our shows, comics, and books are funded first by large souless corporations that then get a return on their investment from the consumer. It's not antithetical to art in my opinion, BUT, it does mean that any of the value that we would give things in the past is now gone. Because we're no longer enjoying the subject matter of people greater than ourselves, we're enjoying content that was put together with all the finesse of a hotdog for mass consumption. And when we're not, we're enjoying content we know was specifically tailored to our interests and that's why it costs more or is rarer.

None of that is inherently bad as I already said. In my opinion it's actually pretty good. But I do think that it's also why things seem less prestine than a lot of the 'old masterpieces'. It's true that some masterpieces are admired because of the effect they had on their field within their time periods. But I'd argue some of that glamor is also because that content was created for 'people who are better than regular people' within that same time period. And so now we're left with material that nuanced in it's own right, but devoid of that suspension of disbelief that we're witnessing something larger than ourselves.