In "The Current Cinema", Pauline Kael discusses the extent to which art house films became the cultural norm, especially for the growing 60's youth counterculture movement. The appeal of this style was not only the quality of the films produced, but also the feeling of being "an inside audience whose members enjoy tuning in together to a whole complex of shared experiences and attitudes." This elitist appeal and sense of superiority is arguably part of what made the counterculture movement so successful as well and still pervades the "indie" counterculture today. Does this deviation from mainstream culture actually imply a higher quality or artistic aesthetic? Or is a film automatically considered more legitimate only because it defies artistic convention?