Good or popular?

I have been nagging quite a bit here about my inner conflicts between popular success and original quality. I apologize if it has bothered you. It bothers me too. I vastly prefer good art over popular art. I admit I’m even a bit of a snob here. But I have Walter Benjamin on my side. Popular works have simply lost their aura.

For art to be good, it needs to be very specific and very nuanced. It’s only logical that this limits the audience. For a wide appeal, the work needs to be broad and general.

But when it comes to judging my own work, I find it difficult to distinguish between good and popular. I create art for other people. I know there is a tendency among some creative people that says you should create for yourself. I simply don’t understand that. I don’t see the point.

I want other people to see my work. I want them to enjoy my work. And if and when they do, I tend to consider the work good. I’m that shallow. I believe people. So, naturally, any game of ours that reaches the biggest audience is the best game.

But this conflicts with what I say above, that good art, per definition, cannot be popular.

Extreme popularity is more or less a guarantee for low quality. But extreme obscurity is by no means a guarantee for high quality. Humans are not that different from each other. If a work is good, there generally tends to be a group of people who agree that it is.

But how large can this group become before the consensus on high quality turns into plain popularity, and thus low quality?

And is it really just a question of numbers?