[Lazare]

> It's seems clear that any content that advances the art is better than a content doesn't advance the art.

Better in what way?

Let's say Movie A is a well loved blockbuster that millions of people see and enjoy. Movie B is a very mixed piece that isn't really enjoyable to watch, but "advances the art" in some key ways. Movie C is an even more well loved blockbuster than movie A, which even more millions of people will see and enjoy, but that was only made because the director was one of the few that really understood Movie B.

The argument, as I understand it, is that Movie B is somehow objectively better than Movie A and Movie C, because it enables Movie C to exist, even though Movie C isn't actually good, because it doesn't advance the art? That doesn't make sense to me. The journey has value only to the extent that the destination is valuable, no? If C is trash, then what was the point of "advancing the art" enough that we could make C? (Conversely, if we're discussing "advancing the art" in a way that isn't required to make anything anyone wants to watch, then we're clearly not discussing finding a global maxima, right?)

[anigbrowl]

You're retroactively adding new premises (eg that Move C is crap) in order to support your conclusion. Step back from your post for a moment and you'll see it's based on a logical fallacy.

[walterbell]

B does not exist for the sake of C, which is profiteering from B.

B exists for D, which will be better than B.

Isn't this the history of progress in creative human activities?

[tormeh]

Sounds like an exploitation vs. exploration discussion. The correct answer is that both is worthless without the other; executing movies well is worthless without exploring new movie ideas and vice versa.

Given that we've been exploring for quite some time I guess exploitation is generally preferable if we had to choose.

Executing a movie with new ideas well is not an option as you're relying on the new idea being good i.e. dumb luck.