{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031221303948576674, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036730945821854912, 'mean_word_length': 5.055555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Afterlife of Autonomy

Anguished soul-searching on the relation between art and entertainment is a leitmotif in modern cultural criticism. The terms come with strong moral connotations; 'art' is usually seen as the positive term and 'entertainment' the bad one, though the reverse can also be true. Such musings tend to be slightly more sophisticated versions of Sadakichi Hartmann's 1912 Camera Work essay on motion pictures, which hinged on the dichotomy of 'popular amusement' on the one hand and 'art' on the other. High-minded defences of art against vulgar entertainment are as ritualistic and unproductive as the glorification of popular entertainment over elitist art. However, when the underlying issue is perceived to be that of autonomy, the nature of such analyses change (at least if we abandon the identification of art with autonomy and of art's other, the culture industry, with heteronomy). In contrast to the mass-market kitsch of the latter, art was characterised by its ability to make its own laws, obeying no external (economic, social, or political) imperatives.