> This might be the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that something being engineered for lowest common denominator mass-market appeal makes it more artis

> This might be the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that something being engineered for lowest common denominator mass-market appeal makes it more artistic. I don't think I'd argue for that. But I would argue that making something that appeals to a very narrow, static group of people is probably less artistic than something that appeals to a wider group of people. Or think of it like a band—they release an album, it attracts a group of fans. They can keep making the same thing over and over again and attract the same group of people—and many bands do this. But it's very static. Or they can expand their horizons, explore music more, and experiment. They'll lose some old fans who are looking for the same sound that they've always gotten, but if their experiments are successful, then they'll reach new people who are interested in some of their new ideas. And some of those people might listen to the band's older catalog, and develop an appreciation for music they might not otherwise encounter. And maybe their experiments fail, and they lose their original audience, without attracting a new one. That happens all the time, too. But at least they pushed the boundaries, instead of playing it safe.