|
|
|
|
|
by RugnirViking
79 days ago
|
|
I understand the hypothetical argument that you could enjoy a simple meal, a simple life, etc. And there are many that do - but that doesn't mean some things aren't preferable to other things to some people. It just shows that people's preferences are different. But generally, we see that given the choice, people do rate art differently. That people prefer certain things to other things more often than chance. Some of it is perhaps cultural, sure. But does that really undermine the point? The trick of making good art/products whatever is literally hitting a thing a large group of people like. It's not cheating to try and make people of your culture, or any specific culture or subculture, like it. That's actually kinda most of the point. You really can distinguish between a competent but otherwise uninteresting thing and something truly special by just like... Putting it out there. Many things that were widely distributed were not especially well liked, and others remain literal classics. Why? |
|
It's a little silly to say "mainstream is crap! Why doesn't the better stuff rise to the top?" It's because people don't agree on what's better.