What Makes a Masterpiece?: The Artist as Philosopher

Another serendipitous borrow from the library was What Makes a Masterpiece? edited by Christopher Dell. A quick scan of the introduction results in numerous keywords and phrases such as "timeless, profound, works of genius, visionary, perfect, transcendental, pinnacle of a creative career, works that define an oeuvre, instantly recognized...." which perhaps are terms that most Viewers of Art would correlate with "Masterpiece" but may be too ambiguous to define or differentiate major from minor works or ordinary works or particularly indicate the future for a Work-In-Progress.

The purpose of a Masterpiece, similar to any Artifact, might be to inform, to entertain, to commemorate, to educate, to reinforce beliefs, and/or to encourage reflection or devotion. Generally, a Masterpiece might portray technical virtuousity, groundbreaking skill, and originality of approach giving some indication that the piece is "On The Edge" of historical normalness in that it ventures into a new arena previously unexplored. It may push into new areas of Insight, develop new Formulations, or Express and Exhibit new Ideas. The book suggests that a Masterpiece reflects value judgements and may well be defined by juxtapositions of the Maker, the Viewers, and the Culture of its Time. Also, a Masterpiece tends to reflect Universal Concepts and Values that become Timeless and therefore could be considered Transcendental.

It's value as a Masterpiece may be related to the quality of the materials and the time to produce the Artifact. Works from the heart, head, and hand of an Artist deemed to be a Master...whether deceased or alive...may be considered to be exceptional and highly valued but may or may not be considered a Masterpiece per se.

This book cites Kenneth Clark in What is a Masterpiece? (1979) indicating that a Masterpiece is both:

• "a confluence of memories and emotions forming a single idea" and
• "a power of recreating traditional forms so that they become expressive of the artist's own epoch and yet keep a relationship with the past"

But I remain unconvinced....based on those two premises alone as distinguishing characteristics of a Masterpiece versus Works Other Than a Masterpiece. Christopher Dell indicates that in Modern art in particular a distinguishing feature of a Masterpiece is less about the quality of the Artistic Formulation or even the resultant Artifact but rather it is "Ideas That Count". Perhaps to stretch that verbiage further, the art "Makes a Difference" or "Changes the World" or has an "Impact on Humanity".

If a Masterpiece is truly timeless, it would reflect not only the Artist's own era and also reach into the foundations of art history and the human experience but I might add the following.... that a Masterpiece....

• Instantiates a New Idea at a Moment in Time thereby adding to the timeless and transcendental universal Aesthetic

Perhaps Kenneth Clark's definition is more appropriate if we say "...forming a single [evolutionary or revolutionary] idea" (italics mine).

So, Dear Reader, we can pick our favorite Artist and review the pieces of the Master that we adore, compare them against these listed criteria, and see how they stack.  What is the New Idea that we venerate for each Masterpiece instantiated at its moment in human history?