>>62232618in art you always have artists that are in the middle between artistic and popular and Tarantino is the embodiment of this when it comes to films. Similarly you have people like Warhol when you look at art (sculpture etc. this kind of art) or Vonnegut when you look at literature. Usually their works are well done but still very accessible, there are pop culture references, 'simple' humour, not too experimental in style etc.. The plebs think that these are the pinnacle of their craft so they say they like them (or they really like them, whatever, but often for different reasons, like enjoying Tarantino for the violence scenes). It's much harder to appreciate a film, a book, a piece of art, a piece of music in a way that needs the consumer (i.e. you) to put some work into understanding structure/meaning and so on, because you don't get instant gratification. But of course this work pays off, that's why watching and understanding a good art film is much more fulfilling than watching a well produced action movie, the same goes for literature and all the other arts.
