Genuine question for the "intellectuals" here. I just sat through a bunch of Buñuel and Dalí stuff, and honestly, if I filmed my neighbor's cat staring at a wall for ten minutes and played some accordion music over it, half of you would probably call it a "masterpiece of subverting expectations." Is there actually any objective metric for what makes "good" surrealism, or are we all just collectively gaslighting ourselves because a cow's eye got sliced once in 1929? How do you actually tell the difference between "deep symbolic art" and "the director just wanted to be weird for the sake of it"? Curious if anyone actually has a real answer or if we're all just vibing in the dark