[jal278]

This is naive 'populism': There's no way to avoid 'allusion' writ large -- e.g. do you object to biblical references, or to references to particular experiences that only some people have (heartbreak, death of a father)? Sure, some communities basically 'write for themselves' in a way that becomes inaccessible to outsiders w/o a lot of work. But that's fine -- I like a McDonald's hamburger as well as really nuanced flavors (for whatever reason I like nuance in how I make oatmeal that likely few others probably appreciate). Film buffs like the nuance/allusions in that medium; etc. Your comment seems like: "The stuff I like is the best and does the most for humanity" -- I think there is indeed an argument for art that is broadly appreciable, but your comment is a form of the 'gatekeeping' you criticize -- it's gatekeeping for art that doesn't require a lot of effort (for you, and those like you) to appreciate.

[rectang]

> do you object to biblical references, or to references to particular experiences that only some people have (heartbreak, death of a father)?

I mean allusions as discussed in the NYT article: "poetic references", or what we might also call "literary allusions".

> "The stuff I like is the best and does the most for humanity"

Fortunately, broadly appreciable art thrives independently of advocacy from me or anyone else.