What makes something a great work of Art?

I’ve been considering all of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of works of art that I have seen and although I’m not sure I can really outline what makes a great work of art, I may be able to shed a bit of light on what it is that I respect in a work of Art.

I am a big believer in spontaneity in work, improvisation can be beneficial to the creative process. But I don’t think too many truly great works of Art are spontaneous. Spontaneity can be an extremely valuable tool in developing a masterpiece, but I am of the opinion that truly great works of Art merely look spontaneous, the craft of a master hiding the vast amount of development and work that generally go into a piece.

The cave paintings at Lascaux, France, Altamira in Spain and similar locations are what I would consider very good, some even great works of Art, and part of this is a certain “historical value” attached to the importance of knowing that people have been creating in a masterful way for such a long time. I have seen pictures of some that I would consider to be the work of masters, the conditions under which they were produced were difficult and the results sometimes stunning, the lifelike quality that some of them have is breathtaking.

It is somewhat the same with the ancient Greek sculptors, the force of the form and the knowledge that they were sculpted using only hand tools amazes me. Observing the progression from the ancient to the archaic to the classical culminating in the work of masters like Phidias and Polyclitus is a great exercise for any Artist to trace. And then to see those works reflected in the works of the later masters like Michelangelo and most other Western Artists since the Greeks, it really gives me a sense of the fullness of time and also that there seems to be running through it all a thread, a line that goes from point a in the far past to point b which is now and hopefully to point c which is somewhere in the distant future. Some of the frescoes at Pompeii hold a life that is an extension of the ancient cave paintings in France, Spain and Algeria. It continues in the work of Rubens and others and I see it in the works of Picasso, Dali and Remington.

Michelangelo’s “Pieta” which is in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican is an amazing bit of work, I don’t think I have ever heard anybody who was sane say anything bad about this work, some have wondered at the size ratio between Mary and Jesus, but it is a powerful bit of work. The delicacy of the finish is so beautiful; it is difficult to believe that it is stone even though it is a cliché to say so.

Vincent Van Gogh’s troubled genius left us many beautiful images. And what I feel about his landscapes is that they are so “solid.” He really gave his paintings a life due to the movement of the lines of paint across the canvas, the thick paint throwing its weight into a sort of multi-dimensional dance. His work learning to draw for a long while before he started to paint really paid off.

From the 20th century (it still feels odd to write that) the piece that always comes to mind is Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica”; I have a hard time not thinking of the horror and destruction of war when I see that screaming horse, I can almost hear it in my head.

Samuel Barber’s Adagio for strings Op. 13 stands out as a favorite which I think will stand the test of time as a great piece. It has been used as background music in many movies in the past decade or so, I first heard it in my college music theory classes. The somber and tragic quality of the piece so moves me that I now use it as a sort of “upper” when I’m feeling really low, in my darkest hours, when I’m really wallowing in self-loathing or pity I put it on and crank it up and pretty soon I’ve just gotta laugh and think to myself “you think you’re sad; listen to this guy.”

Beethoven’s 5th symphony is usually recognized as one of the greatest pieces of music ever written; I certainly agree. This is one I like to crank up when I’m feeling good. That great opening “da-da-da-dah…..da-da-da-duh” gets my attention every time. I really enjoy his use of dynamics and the “color” produced by his choice of instrumentation. The later parts of the symphony are not nearly so widely recognized but contain as much passion as the opening if one is willing to wait for it.

I have to say that I feel that “quality” is something that is invested in something by the time that the Artist puts into the piece, coupled with the skill of the Artist and the initial quality of the materials used. The display or performance situation can make a great difference in the way that a piece is perceived, bad lighting or poorly-skilled Musicians can make almost anything look or sound bad, but even in these situations the power of a masterpiece usually manages to shine through.

Well folks, I don’t know if I have been able to answer my own question, something that will probably happen with alarming frequency. I hope that some of you will take this as a cue and realize that many of these questions can’t be answered definitively, they are sort of intended as general topics and that something “near” the question is really what I’m looking for.

Thanks to those of you who have submitted essays, they are most welcome and you are very brave. Being among the first in anything requires a lot of guts and I hope you will submit again in the future.