All great works of art are about God. The role of art is to help us to develope our higher faculties and this is what really matters. I have no use for art as entertainment or propaganda.
Are you implying that art that is not about God cannot be thought of as great? If so, I beg to differ.
Like I said all great works of art are about God.
As far as a great work of art is concerned there must be something to go by and not just anything will do. You can obtain reliable bearings by relating art to the human being, which consists of feeling, thinking and willing. If art aims primarly to effect our feelings we call it entertainment; if it aims to effect our thinking we call it propaganda. No great artist is ever satisfied with just these two. Invariably he stives to communicate truth, the power of truth, by appealing to mans higher intelectual faculties which are suprarational. Entertainment and propaganda do not give us power but exert power over us. When they are transended by, and made subservient to, the communication of truth, art helps us to develope our higher faculties and this is what matters to me. Therefore, all great art is about God, and all you can say is, “I beg to differ.” Very nice.
I totally disagree. There is much great art that is not about God
And what exactly about a work of art makes it great? This appears to be a topic that is beyound you capacity to describe. Your response is not adaquate to your purpose of what is great art. Maybe you dont know.
Profound. I look forward to reading the articles you no doubt possess that describe and evaluate this “suprarational” faculty that human beings have. Can you post some links? I apparently have been living under a rock and haven’t heard an empirical peep about such a concept.
All I’m saying is that a great artwork does not have to be about God. It can be about anything. For example, take a look at the works of Dali, the fluid clock or the disappearing bust of Voltaire. And of course, there are so many more as to be innumerable.
If being about “God” were the criterion for great art, this would be a very impoverished world indeed.
I dont think you will ever hear an empirical peep about anything unless it is at the material level. Art is not just about the materials used.
Here are some examples: “The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.” SaintThomas Aquinas 1225-1274. Summa theologica
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica
What he is saying here is it would be a very great loss indeed if knowledge were limited to things beyond the possibility of doubt. He also argued "No man tends to do a thing by his desire and endevor unless it be previouly known to him wherefor man is directed by divine providence to a higher good than human fraility can attain in the present life… it was necessary for his mind to be bidden to something higher… Summa contra Gentiles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
On the contrary if all art was about entertainment and propaganda then this world would be impoverished. Maybe your level of understanding is not adaquate to the artists. Some people are icapable of grasping and appreciating great works of art not because they are blind but because of a lack of adaequatio in the mind.
What you just said not only makes no sense in itself, but you are also using a straw man to argue against something I never said or implied – which is that as you put it (not me) “all art was about entertainment and propaganda.” Don’t be ridiculous.
Just to remind you: all I said is that there is much great art that is not about God.
Yes. Thomas Aquinas has said much, and been refuted often. I’m curious, by what standard do you evaluate “knowledge”?
Not at all. This is your - or Mr. Aquinas’ - opinion - not fact. Why should I accept such subjective, unsubstantiated opinion as reasonable?
Again, the “scholastics”, like many mystics of the past like Mr. Aquinas, said much - but have been refuted and found wanting, over and over again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and your claims about an existence or understanding “beyond human” has no such evidence - and therefore deserves no consideration.
Great art - as the saying goes - is in the eye of the beholder - nothing more. Art reflects our own, unique, individual perspective of our world and the experiences therein. God - like everything else - is a construct of man and art dedicated or describing God is nothing more than one individual’s perspective on how they view their interaction with the world.
Again, I dont think you will ever hear an empirical peep about anything unless it is at the material level. Art is not just about the materials used.
You seem have a mind that is frightenly narrow. You seem to limit your knowledge and ideas to things that are precise and certain beyond any possibility of doubt. Is that because you primary interest is that you wish to become master and pocesser of nature? Would you reduce the whole of Art history to nothing but the qualities of paint and canvas or geometry? You are weak minded because you doubt everything you cannot grasp with ease. This is a withdrawl from wisdom. Neither mathmatics or physics can give meaning to a work of great art. The most real world we live in is that of our fellow human beings.
What is your criteria?!!! That great works of art require melting clocks?
… in your opinion. I didn’t suggest art was “just” - or even “at all” - about the materials used. Who are you responding to?
I’ll ask again: what is “your” measure of knowledge? Can anything “claimed” become knowledge? If I claim to be in contact with all matter of creatures and spirits for which there is no evidence - can I claim what they “teach” me to be knowledge?
Why do you evade the question?
Again, I’m not sure who you’re responding to. I said art was a unique, personal experience. Both the artist and the receiver of that art bring a unique set of experiences - and therefore perspectives - to bear on what constitutes or resonates with them as “great art”. I have no idea how such a statement can be construed as anything to do with “becoming master and pocesser of nature”… 
Quite the astute observation. I am weak minded. I simply fail, repeatedly, to grasp “knowledge” that is claimed or “revealed”… probably because such purported information has never been useful to any human being - other than the one making the claims - but hey… details, details, right? I’m happy in my ignorance - and you in your “suprarational” state. 
Umm… was this directed at me too? Who are you responding to? So confusing. Must be my weak mind. Again. Sigh.
dairdo wrote:
You are the one looking for empirical evidence on what makes a work of art great, maybe it is your memory.
My response was directed towards your “suprarational” claim, not the appreciation of art in general.
Do you have any? Or are we just to accept, without question, your assertions about what constitutes “great art” on your unsubstantiated beliefs?
Here is my standard on how to evaluate knowledge.
Uderstanding the signifcance of data obtained from the senses requires some form of higher or suprarational faculties. You may attain objectivity, but fail to attain knowledge of the object as a whole. Objective empirical evidence requires only the lowest, the most superficial observations of the senses and therefore aspects of the object are accessible only to the instruments we employ; everything that makes the object humanly interesting, meaningful and significant escapes us. Wisdom is a type of knowledge that can be gained only by bringing into play the highest and noblest powers of the mind which we can call suprarational. Knowledge gained by plain objective observations only bring into play powers that are possessed by everyone (except the severely handicapped), mainly pointer readings and counting. All knowledge is subjective inasmuch as it cannot exist otherwise than in the mind of a human subject. The real difference which sets one againt the other dirives from the nature of their objects. The object of wisdom is such that, by reason of its intelligibility alone, no evil use can be made of it; the object of science is such that it is in constant danger of falling into the clutches of cupidity, owing to its very materiality.
The role of art in society has been see as the great change agent of society. Marshall McLuhan among others discuss this and show many examples of how this occurs. Try The Gutenberg Galaxy, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understand … ons_of_Man
enjoy.
Alas - we’re back to “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. You can claim this “suprarational” faculty exists until you’re blue in the face - but at the end of the day, it’s no different from my claim that unicorns, pixies and garden gnomes exist.
Well, It does require faith because, just like unicorns and pixies self awareness dosnt exist. It is invisible. Modern science has no method for comming to grips with life as such. Self awareness is something that most of us experience but is totaly incomprehensible in the life sciences. There is no excuse that life is nothing but physics and chemistry. Without regognising the different levels of being (which cannot be explained by chemistry and phisics alone), you cant possibly prove your even human. Everything everywhere, can be understood only when its level of being is fully taken into account. Its quite obvious to me that man is not only able to think but is also able to be aware of his thinking and which there is no empirical evidence to prove it. Man is just a dressed up ape and to try to prove otherwise using empirical evidence is imposible. Its like beleiving in unicorns. There is no extraordinary evidence there is only faith and subjective experience.