Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet

Recognizing a work as a valuable part of an artist's oeuvre, even if it's not a seminal work, is a legitimate form of appreciation - and it doesn't have to meet cultural norms in order to be praised. "The end of the auteur" is a headline as old as art criticism, and one of its most forgettable. Contrast that with the naysayers who decried Pollock or Kubrick – I don't remember their critics' names, do you?