[aamar]

Right, agreed that that’s a conflict; the latter point—primarily about aesthetic pleasure—isn’t quite right or is at least misleading. In my reading, Bloom values deep wisdom, formal excellence, and innovation—and these things are pleasurable, but also refract our deepest understandings of ourselves and others. He values these over more ‘politicized’ or culturally specific readings.

It’s a little—just a little—like the “art for art’s sake” movements, where the slogan says less about what art is for and mostly insists that art isn’t about its conventionally understood purposes (to morally educate, to record, etc.) and also not about the next dozen theories that might occur to you.