I came across this article (or rather, was directed to it through a friend's post) regarding the nature of rebellion turning into conformity, and felt it was really well-put.
It is something I noticed as a youth in Northern California, where the "Goth" movement was really popular in my teen years (Goth being the slightly more malevolent and less soppy version of "emo.") I noticed that the idea was to be "non-conformist," and yet the bizarre hair colors -- which earned them the title "Fraggles" -- leather studded attire, and sad-clown makeup actually became just as conformist as the norm, but in a "Biff has stolen the time-machine and changed reality" sort of way.
It relates perfectly to art. When I was in high school, a fellow "artist," and I use the term loosely, consistently berated my cartoonist style, saying cartoonists were not really artists, but rather sell-outs who didn't know how to be expressive. To me, such a statement is tantamount to spitting on Milt Kahl's grave. Take a look at any one frame of Medusa from "The Rescuers" and tell me it doesn't ooze expression. However, Milt Kahl, known to be perhaps the greatest draftsman in animation history, did not become so by simply "cartooning" his way to glory. His skills were deeply routed in a knowledge of fine arts and the Masters of the craft.
I digress. The point I am trying to make (in apparently the wordiest way I can) is read this article, because it is fantastic, and says everything I'm failing to here :D
(and thanks for sharing, Les!)