> Why do people die from erotic self-asphyxiation? Because we have a compulsion to escalate and to push things further. We need novelty. We need new stuff. We go mad if it's just the same thing over and over. At least that's true for most of us. Not everyone takes it all that far, but when you invest a significant amount of time doing one thing in particular, you're always going to want to take it to greater heights.

> And that's the thing about critic reviews: they represent movie fans suffering from the cinematic equivalent of erotic self-asphyxiation. Old, tired cliches and predictable plots? No. They want something they haven't seen before. Art movies are incredibly weird, and film critics love them.

I think thismisunderstands art movies, film critics, and art in general (though there are exceptions). As someone who has learned to understand arts on very roughly that level, including film (an 'admission' that always gets a negative reaction!) it's not that you want more and different, like a hit of heroin, it's that your perception changes and you see things that you didn't see before. I first saw Richard III when I was in high school and let's say I didn't love it! I saw it more recently and it was mind-blowing; it soared to heights I didn't imagine, one after the other (though not a happy story way!). It was the same play - I wasn't getting something more or new - I just perceived so much more, from the language to the characters to the insights to the virtuoso writing. That change in perception is fundamental human perception and applies to anything in which we gain experience and expertise.

When you first drink wine, you cannot distinguish much between different bottles. You literally cannot taste all the flavors, see the colors, and perceive the other sensations that someone with more experience and expertise can. I'm sure you experience it with your profession or hobbies. If you sail boats, you perceive things that beginning sailors do not - and not meaningless things, but things that have a real impact. The same with reviewing code, UX, automobile engines, audio speaker sound, athletic performance, etc. etc. - whatever you have a developed perception of.

Human perception is far more than sensory input; what you 'see' is processed through your brain, including neurons that change based on usage and training, and also through your experience - you recognize your family on a perceptual level, for example (afaik).

The generic, quality critic sees things that you and I don't. I try to learn to see those things too, because when I do, they can be wonders. Just like wine tastes even better, car engines are far more moving, etc. when you develop that perception, so do the experiences of films, paintings, theater - I see colors (metaphorically, but literally sometimes) that I didn't earlier in life, so beautiful I didn't imagine they existed.

'Art films' sometimes cater to more developed perceptions and ignore others, which can make them seem wierd - there is (usually) something there to see, I promise (there are superficial genre art films, as with everything else). It's also true that you appreciate different innovations, such as a film that uses an old technique in an ingenius and powerful way, which you wouldn't notice if you didn't know about the technique, which is somewhat about finding something new, as you say.