what is the role of masses in detrmining literature?To start off let me clarify what is the general norm which prevails in this regard.
1)The general public create a hitherto unknown field of art.For example the african american slaves in USA created a new form of music called panjo when they came to USA as slaves.Soon this spread over to whites too and this music became popular.When some unknown field gets popularity slowly pundits evolve in that field.when the field gains momentum filteration needs to be done.And soon the responsibility of determining junk and literature in that field falls in the hands of pundits.Public cannot devote their life to that field like pundits do.So the responsibility automatically shifts to pundits.
2)Pundits then tend to grade and classify literature.At times they will not agree with public.Now clash occurs.Pundits will say something as not literature.But public will accept it commercially.For example in novels no critic accepted franklin dixon's hardy boys as literature.But public gave it a roving reception.But with passage of time it waned away.With new authors coming in hardy boys lost their popularity.Now they are no where.
3)I seldom see popular opinion alone making any work literature contrary to critics opinion.If both pundits view and public view coincides nothing greater than that.They wont coincide at times,and we have always seen who has the correct judgement in the end.
4)I agree that public have a say in literature.They create a field which cannot be done by any critic.For example gana songs can be moulded into a seperate art field in future.Puthukavithai's can become a seperate art field.But once that happens the control switches from public hands to critics hands.Once a field matures or grows public will cease to be judges anymore.Once you define a field,once you set parameters in a field public lose their judgement role.Dedicated diehard critics take that role away from public.
If we take movie industry till they give a hit every director will do anything,will go down to any level to win.But if 3 movies become succesful they then will start craving for recognition from critics.They will crave for immortality.Unfortunately that cannot be given by public.So they will try creating movies to get recognition.Kamal creates hey ram,kuruthi punal,maruthanayagam to get that recognition.But he also knows that he has to come up with vasool raja and sahalakalavallavan often.He is torn apart between the artist and the banker.
THere are artists who dont know to act except in certain roles.They know that they can never win immortality.They kill the artist inside them for money.Public too will punish them if they deviate.So the likes of vijaykanth,MGR,Rajinikanth, hit a rut and stay there permenantly.No critic will consider them as artists.These guys wont bother about it.Make money till you can.Thats all.
Vikram,kamal,shivaji have satisfied the artist in themselves with some movies for 'the sake of art'.If you kill the artist inside you and treat art as a business then art wont give you immortality.The ephimeral public support will disappear once the next magician comes.But you will be rich and famous.