[bmacho]

> I think this is an act of a generosity. It shows that an artist is not only competent enough to execute something that complex, but also thinking deeply of their audience's time and money.

If the artist is thinking deeply of her audience's time then she should not make the book (or art) worth rereading. Putting things at the beginning that only make sense at the second reading is rude and inconsiderate to the audience.

Well, this is my view of the books or shows that have rewatchability anyway. Fuck them, I won't. Also screw the artist for messing with my time.

[gabriel666smith]

Haha. It's lucky that art is subjective, so I'm definitely right :-)

I wasn't saying a piece shouldn't stand on its own on first viewing - that is not hospitable, IMO. I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say: That I like art that has prismatic qualities, ie, revealing different things when looked at from a different time and place.

This isn't mutually exclusive with the first angle you come at it from being beautiful. It's just additive.

[amonroe805-2]

This is sort of a strange reply. You don’t have to spend any time on art at all really. For many people, the more they can spend time enjoying the art they like, the better. If you don’t like the art, that’s one thing, but if you do like it, why must it be shorter?

The video game community is often pretty explicit about this. They want their favorite games to be longer, not shorter, because they want to spend more time enjoying it. I don’t think it’s so strange that people may apply the same mentality, to books, movies, etc as well.