How Shakespeare?

[milo]

Canons like that can exist as props. For instance, if I wanted to make my own personal canon, and had nothing to say (sound familiar?), I could use the concept of a canon and the contents of the canon to sense-make within that context, or to have a Big Other to war against. The very process of that has artistic affect-quality, even if the premises are arbitrary, as you said.
This can lead to what art is and what art is or isn't useful for. Which create categories like highbrow and lowbrow, which, in themselves, can also be used as contextual props in which to work. This may seem pointless and pretentious, but if you would rather paint game on cave walls in order to magically enhance the hunt, that's valid too. Or art even for topical protest purposes.

Without a doubt - a lot of Shakespeare (to bring it back around) was considered low brow in his day (there is some baudy humor in there)

The first time I ever heard of The Canon (might have been the English Canon at the time) it was in criticism of it and since then every single time I have heard it referenced (including this time) was in criticism of it.  It has evolve to be actually a counterpoint to the argument for itself causing a kind of literary existentialism.

How far has it gone?  In curiosity I googled the English Canon and got this:

 . . .  heavily featuring traditionally privileged authors like Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens. It serves as a, frequently criticized, benchmark for "essential" reading, with ongoing efforts to diversify it beyond its historically white, male, and colonial focus. 

Western Canon and by extension all canon only exists at this time as a criticism of Western Canon.  It is the mobius strips of debate with every single living person on the same side.