That is probably it, across all the corporate arts. I think it was Augusto Boal who talked about how the works of Machiavelli and the works of Shakespear (and maybe others, I forget) represent big changes in the kinds of writing before them because they were ushering in a society. The kinds of heroes changed, the nature of their battles and drama changed, and it reflected the values of an emerging "middle" class that .. well were greedy to say it crassly or maybe better stated they were carving out their own niche for themselves between the poor and the royalty or old money/power. I interpret his description as the birth of a morality-less age, but he's not a moralist. I don't know if that's a fair assessment of Shakespeare, or even it was Boal (It would be in Theater of the Oppressed I think), but I think there is a clear effort to chisel out the distinguishing features of the art of the past and remake it into a new art for the present that will appear to have always been like that. The same way the "struggle" for trans rights men using women's bathrooms to get off has been going on forever slightly less time than there's been women's bathrooms. I know for my analogy I'd have crossed out the other way around, but I just can't.