«other arts» have mostly referred to precisely these two aspects. [3] However, I am less concerned with various historical critiques or the aggression shown toward Hollywood, than with the numerous ways of formulating desire for Hollywood and how this desire evokes another side of the «otherness» of cinema and art. My thesis is that this desire almost always has something to do with a compromise inherent in the term «auteur.» This thesis is only valid if you understand this problematic constellation in a broader sense to include the role of the subjective or, if you will, the human factor in industrial forms of production, a production that is strongly defined by technology and is, nevertheless, culturally coded. As we will see, the author is just one means of indicating the human factor; others might originate with the audience, the actors, and naturally media technology itself, each of which would offer different approaches to this topic. Thus when I speak of the author, I do not refer to a problematic and much-criticized, metaphysical category within antiquated approaches to aesthetics, but rather, pragmatically and postmetaphysically, so to speak, to one of the

subjective links in the culture industry’s production chain of processes (which are based upon the division of labour) and to the various things that can help us conceptualize this link, including the other subjective factors already mentioned. I would like to describe four constellations, four authors’ politics, in which an «other» cinema poses the question of the human factor to the ‹dominant› (Hollywood) cinema.

3. Kenneth Anger