I’m at my friend’s place in West Hollywood, and he won’t turn off the show 'Skins' even though he has to have seen it at least four separate times now. He’s surely done this to his other friends. I’ve already seen 'Skins' before, and I wasn’t super impressed on my first viewing. I’m watching teenagers do what teenagers do. The premise alone isn’t very compelling to me, and it’s also why I’m not a fan of Larry Clark’s 'Kids' (1995).

This kind of “topical art” almost always fails to move me. Art that exists primarily to document relatable moments: what teenagers do, what drugs they take, how they talk. In this case, what the teenagers of Bristol do, what drugs they take, and how they talk. I can’t figure out what’s so appealing about it. Maybe that's the appeal: documentation feels like insight when you recognise yourself in it. Watching Skins or Kids, viewers mistake "that's exactly what it was like" for depth. But recognition isn't revelation.

I’m moved by ambitious art. That’s why I love Lars Von Trier’s 'Dogville' (2003).  It forces the viewer to confront capitalism in such a subversive and uncomfortable way. Not everything can be so revelatory, but if no attempt is made at all, I think that’s its own folly.

My friend will probably watch Skins for a sixth time next year. And I get it. There's comfort in seeing something analogous to your experience reflected back to you. But I'd rather be unsettled by something ambitious than soothed by something familiar.