Great Art

[Ed from OC]

In the Kill Bill discussion, several posters contended that while the movie was original, it was not great. "Greatness" was something else.

Why distinguish beteween good and great? A good movie is an enjoyable experience; a great one brings the sublime to your soul.

So what is the standard for great art? What is it about, say, Les Miserables, the Sistine Chapel, Fallingwater, Othello, or The Fountainhead that make them great works of art, but not, say, The Da Vinci Code or Patriot Games? I think there is more to it than merely a difference in degree from the good.

Some attributes of great art:

Originality. Each presents a new approach to their field.

Quality. The crafstmanship is not just up to par, but beyond it. Regardless of what the author is trying to express, how well is it done?

Influence. Later artists build on the advancement. (This is a secondary effect of being great, and is secondhanded. Nonetheless it may be used as an indicator to consider whether a particular work of art is great.)

The experience. How does a rational person experiencing the work of art react to it?

The values at stake. A conflict over the role of the mind in existence is more dramatic than one over where to eat dinner on Tuesday. (This may not be right, because wouldn't it rule out naturalistic art?)

Which are more essential?

[stephen_speicher]

To begin with, I would dismiss "influence" entirely. It is not just "secondhanded," it is irrelevant to the stated issue: "what is the standard for great art?". As such, "influence" is, at most, of historical interest.

As to "The experience. How does a rational person experiencing the work of art react to it?" I am not sure what to make of this. "[E]xperience" and "react" seem to imply the sense of life response, which is not a criterion or standard for art. It is a consequence of art, and the response will be different for different people.

As to the "values at stake" and naturalism: a standard for art cannot be tied to any particular values, but to the degree that naturalism deals with a vanishingly small value of any significance, to that degree it removes itself from the realm of art.

Of the two remaining, "Originality" and "Quality," I would put the latter first. Based on what you describe, I take "Quality" to be how well all the elements and techniques appropriate to the art form are implemented. Each art has its own set of standards: plot, characterization, etc. in literature; shape, texture, etc. in sculpture; and so on for the other arts. I do think that originality is very important for great art, but the quality of the art (as defined) must be of the highest rank.

One key aspect not mentioned is: just how well knit together are all of the elements of the art work. This goes beyond just the quality of each of the elements and techniques, and it stresses how well all the pieces are integrated into a cohesive whole. I would say that quality (as defined) is not sufficient for great art, and that a necessary element is a high degree of integration.