MODERN PAINTERS by John Ruskin Definition of Greatness in Art
…
“If I say that the greatest picture is that which conveys to the mind of the spectator the greatest number of the greatest ideas, I have a definition which will include as subjects of comparison every pleasure which art is capable of conveying. If I were to say, on the contrary, that the best picture was that which most closely imitated nature, I should assume that art could only please by imitating nature; and I should cast out of the pale of criticism those parts of works of art which are not imitative, that is to say, intrinsic beauties of colour and form, and those works of art wholly, which, like the Arabesques of Raffaelle in the Loggias, are not imitative at all. Now, I want a definition of art wide enough to include all its varieties of aim. I do not say, therefore, that the art is greatest which gives most pleasure, because perhaps there is some art whose end is to teach, and not to please. I do not say that the art is greatest which teaches us most, because perhaps there is some art whose end is to please, and not to teach. I do not say that the art is greatest which imitates best, because perhaps there is some art whose end is to create and not to imitate. But I say that the art is greatest which conveys to the mind of the spectator, by any means whatsoever, the greatest number of the greatest ideas; and I call an idea great in proportion as it is received by a higher faculty of the mind, and as it more fully occupies, and in occupying, exercises and exalts, the faculty by which it is received.
“If this, then, be the definition of great art, that of a great artist naturally follows. He is the greatest artist who has embodied, in the sum of his works, the greatest number of the greatest ideas.
[ Modern Painters Vol. I, Part 1, Sec. 1, Chap. 2]
While I generally am not interested in attempts to create hierarchies among works of art (and so rarely take interest in awards shows or prizes like the Oscars, Tonys, or Emmys, the Pulitzers or even, to a large extent, the Nobels), I nevertheless find this an intriguing way to define artistic greatness. Ruskin doesn’t create a hierachy of styles or genres – a comedy can be as idea-filled as a tragedy, for instance, and can be compared and discussed as such. Using Ruskin’s approach, one might argue that the films of, say, Chaplin, are greater than the films of the Keystone Kops because Chaplin uses laughter to examine a variety of ideas about how we live and interact as human beings, whereas the Keystone Kops care primarily about stunts and crashes. Many of the noted sf/fantasy novelists – Le Guin, Bradbury, Asimov, Susanna Clark, William Gibson, Tolkien, to mention only those who spring to my mind this moment – are hailed because they integrated ideas into the very fabric of their novels, whereas J K Rowling, while writing effective (if repetitious) page-turners, are comparatively lacking in ideas.
I’m sure that there are many who would argue that ideas are secondary to some other aspect of art – emotions, for instance – which would be an interesting discussion. Would Ruskin say an emotion is an idea, or a means of amplifying an idea?
This definition of greatness allows me to discuss why I prefer some works of art more than others.