Book authors and such are artists and preloading the piece by a different mindset is likely a non-artist trying to do an artists job.
If I knew you, then might I be able to better recommend art that you will enjoy?*
Might this further generalize to ‘creating a different experience’? An arguer may try to know their audience. But if I know you, should it be any surprise if I can do better—not via an overhaul—but with a small tweak. Customarily, this might be better to put ‘afterwards’ for an experience after the first time, but still.
*Variation on this: another artist creates an ‘alteration’ but I recommend (or don’t recommend) based on knowledge I have of you?
However most spoilers do not try to create additonal art/content but rather just spoil to inform or to discuss.
Being able to customise to a single receiver is an argument to be a better artist than someone who needs to do one that speaks to a wider audience. For example watching a movie with friends one can interject inside jokes between the slow parts. Those inside jokes would be just confusing clutter if they were part of the mass-distribution part of the piece. But clearly somebody could do the jokes lame or talk over the “public” parts of the performance.
Usually when people are infromed about the spoilery nature of some information they will skirt away from them even if they don’t drop the topic. Usually spiling happens when a basic modicum of considering the artistic values is not given. Like it could be a very nebolous question whether a given photograph is part of the art of photography. But police doing passport pictures of people is done for identification purposes. Finding them devoid of art would be proper in atleast in that nobody intentionally put any in. However a stylish potrait might still be specific enough that the subject can be identified and in princple could blow somebodys cover. But the optimization pressure for it to be realistic might not be there (the instrumental value of realism/hyperrealism to artistic end might be very concidental).
If I knew you, then might I be able to better recommend art that you will enjoy?*
Might this further generalize to ‘creating a different experience’? An arguer may try to know their audience. But if I know you, should it be any surprise if I can do better—not via an overhaul—but with a small tweak. Customarily, this might be better to put ‘afterwards’ for an experience after the first time, but still.
*Variation on this: another artist creates an ‘alteration’ but I recommend (or don’t recommend) based on knowledge I have of you?
Is there an objective way to evaluate this?
Being able to customise to a single receiver is an argument to be a better artist than someone who needs to do one that speaks to a wider audience. For example watching a movie with friends one can interject inside jokes between the slow parts. Those inside jokes would be just confusing clutter if they were part of the mass-distribution part of the piece. But clearly somebody could do the jokes lame or talk over the “public” parts of the performance.
Usually when people are infromed about the spoilery nature of some information they will skirt away from them even if they don’t drop the topic. Usually spiling happens when a basic modicum of considering the artistic values is not given. Like it could be a very nebolous question whether a given photograph is part of the art of photography. But police doing passport pictures of people is done for identification purposes. Finding them devoid of art would be proper in atleast in that nobody intentionally put any in. However a stylish potrait might still be specific enough that the subject can be identified and in princple could blow somebodys cover. But the optimization pressure for it to be realistic might not be there (the instrumental value of realism/hyperrealism to artistic end might be very concidental).