system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Art should never be viewed in a vacuum, and should always be viewed as part of the culture surrounding it as well as a production of its creator/s.

My friend believes that art should always be viewed in a vacuum when reviewing it, and judged solely based on its own merits. I'm of the mind that art - **especially** contemporary art - should be primarily viewed as a product of culture and its creator/s, as well as compared to the rest of that creator/s' library of work in order to assess it fairly. 

He explained his viewpoint for a while, but I remained pretty much entirely unconvinced, due to, I suppose, how "useless" or rather "not useful" I find it to be when critiquing art, given that I feel when a work is viewed as divorced from a library of work surrounding it (say, divorcing Bloodborne from the Dark Souls games when talking about design), it loses a significant element of context and appreciation, as well as potential for critique.

I'm interested, however, in this philosophy of art that he seems to espouse, and I'm wondering if anybody can convince me of its merits beyond a thought experiment.
gpt
Each has its own merits. 

Judging the work as a single cohesive experience tends to maximize the emotional and sensory impact of a work. You don't think about it, you foreground it and let the content wash over you.

Judging the work through its context is a more intellectual sort of appreciation. You'll make all sorts of interesting insights and connections, but the work will feel less immediate, less immersive.

I think the best method is to first experience it "in a vacuum" then experience it in context.