well, novels developed simultaneously with capitalism and the printing press in the 19th century; they were very much a "popular" genre contrasted with poetry and, at this point, theater. 18th century novels were like, a different beast, and vary drastically across continental Europe in terms of acceptability (many 18th century works read like weird pomo novels without the chapters and were published anonymously).
but anyways, what we think of as aesthetic standards, at least the way you describe them, are usually applied retroactively by some sort of bourgeoisie class rather than being emergent with the form itself. we might say modernism rebelled against 19 century realism but it's not really until the "modern period" that the latter works are being valorized in the first place. that's the point that i was trying to make. i think that most emergent forms start off rather rhizomatic and that it takes time for elite classes to retrospectively decide "what's good," codify/striate things, etc. this process obviously speeds up in the ages of mechanical and digital reproduction.
(this is my weird defence of photography, a medium that i know nothing about)