I would rate this higher but I didn't really understand it a lot of the time. I always feel when I read books that reference people like Kant and Heidegger that I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't read Kant and Heidegger. I also don't really want to, I want to read easier people who tell me what it is those guys think, but then when I do, I feel like I ought to have read Kant and Heidegger to understand what their whole deal is.

Anyway, all this is to say that Byung Chul-Han is interested in the difference between entertainment (generally viewed as lower in Western culture) and passion-driven art (generally viewed as higher). He sort of starts this in a historical understanding that discusses certain 1700s-1800s music as being "not religious enough or glorifying God enough" and thus viewed as lesser. Then he talks about some major philosophers and their ideas about what sort of art had passion in it and what sort of art didn't. Then also whether some arts were considered "morally good" or "healthy" and such.