[zipmapfoldright]

anyone _can_ see it, but _most_ people don't (and don't care)

To be clear, I am not saying it's not valuable, only that to the vast majority, it's not.

[soneca]

I wonder if really great stuff are always for a minority. You have to have listened a lot of classical music to notice a great interpretation of Mozart from a good one. To realize how great was a chess move, how magical was a soccer play, how deep was the writing of a philosopher. Not only for stuff that requires previous effort, but also the subjectiveness of art. Picasso will be really moving for a minority of people. The Godfather. Even Shakespeare.

Social media and generative AI may be good business because the capture the attention of the majority, but maybe they are not valuable to anyone.

[zipmapfoldright]

I think of a lot of thing in terms of distributions, and I think the how-much-people-value-quality distribution is not that much different.

On the right side, you have the minority of connoisseurs. And on the left, there is a minority who really don't care at all. And then the middle majority who can tell bad from good, but not good from great.

[whywhywhywhy]

> but _most_ people don't (and don't care)

Perhaps it's not for everyone.

[fc417fc802]

Many things you don't notice consciously unless you take the time to look but they still affect your overall perception. I suspect highly detailed animations fall into that category.

[umko21]

I think you’re right that most people don’t notice, but without the extra effort, it would’ve ended up as just another mediocre animation. And standing out from mediocrity is what made it appealing to many people.

[M95D]

Who cares if it's valuable for the majority? What do you think this is? Stock market for slop?

This is art.

[balamatom]

So what?