Is the greatness of art based on it's sole ability to connect with the masses?
Art, in itself, is a medium, through which the artist, the visionary, expresses himself. Every work of art is unique in it's composition, it's intent, and it's aura. Whether the greatness of such works can be measured against a scale, might be a moot point and very much debatable, with it's pros and cons, as the author here will try to convince you.
Art has been prevalent in many forms, from colorful masterpieces on a pastel to the enthralling tones of a symphony; from the intricate carvings on rock to the direction of a cult-classical act or movie. It is undeniable that the artist, or the composer, is a visionary of this idea, and what he tries to present to the observer, is the world from his own perspective. So the question that really answers the issue here is: Has the perspective of the masses changed over the years, enough to understand the perspective of the artist of a bygone era as well?
Consider Leonardo da Vinci, the famous scientist, author, artist, and pioneer. His most famous works include the Mona Lisa, the Neanderthal Man and the Flying Machine. When da Vinci envisioned these amazing creations, we find that his contemporaries did not have the ability to share his vision. In the medieval times, before the Renaissance, science was frowned upon by the clergy and feared by the masses. Any attempt to fly, for example, was castigated, using the example of the monk Icarus who threw himself from the top of a tower with feathers stuck to his arms. But has the parochial nature of these opinions hinder our awe for the masterpieces? Of course not. Nowadays, da Vinci is recognized for what he really was: a great thinker and pioneer. Hence it goes to show that the true test of greatness of art might not necessarily be determined by it's ability to be understood by the masses - it can be an esoteric topic of discussion as well, to be understood and appreciated by a few.
Let us consider the very idealistic vision of Howard Roark, that Ayn Rand presents in the highly acclaimed book, The Fountainhead. As an architect, Howard Roark is the ideal artist - sacrificing obsolete structures on buildings to make way for pure efficiency and science. What Roark envisions is something that his contemporary colleagues and competitors never come to terms with - as can be seen in the case of Peter, his rival. However, to the few clients who look to organization more than aesthetic appeal, and efficiency more than inctricate molds, Roark's works are the perfect embodiment of their plans. Does the inability of the narrow-minded masses to appreciate his work deter Roark from building what he views as the optimal designs? Certainly not. But can they be viewed as examples of great art? Ayn Rand, among others, thinks so.
However, not all art can be termed masterpieces only because they are understood by but a few. A folk song, and traditional dance, can also be considered among the very examples of great art, purely because they are performed with such fervor by the locals, because these routines embody the enthusiasm of the community. For example, the film industry of India, Bollywood, has it's fair share of 'great'music. While the rest of the world might not be aware of these songs or even their composers, it doesn't take away anything from these great souls.
Shakespeare's plays, would be the ideal examples in this context. William Shakespeare's plays were enacted to the public, the actors leading a peregrinish lifestyle. People would flock together to view these skits, and would follow, in detail, the famous stories that the author penned. Shakespeare is famous because he had an innate knowledge over every human emotion, and this quality made his works more approachable by the common man. The masses cou;d relate to his emotions, and hence his prose has been considered great. Nowadays, however, Shakespearan plays are a little obsolete and esoteric, because of the changes that the English language has undergone. However, the concept he imbibes into each of his stories is quite relevant even today.
Music and film have always had great artists associated with them. Mozart, Beethoven, Ravi Shankar, Joe Satriani, to name a few, have transformed the way people feel through their compositions. And though their music might be universal, not everyone can claim to understand the passion behind these compositions. Famous movies, like Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Casablanca shall always relate to the masses,of any age or time. This is what makes them classics.
A work of art need not be classified great by only the socialites or the highest rungs of society. It can also be great in the way it speaks out to the masses, in a way it connects to the general public. As long as a piece of art has soul in it, it becomes a masterpiece, whether to the artist himself, or to a few - Like in the very famous story by O.Henry 'The Last Leaf', where the artist paints a leaf and gives his life trying to place the leaf among the others on a tree, in an attempt to save a girl's life. That, without doubt, is a masterpiece.
