What Makes a Great Work of Art?

What Makes a Great Work of Art?

This is a question I've been pondering the past few days. Not that I haven't considered it before—I have. But the progressive rock group Yes' new album, Aurora, revived my interest.

Aurora has promise. It's like a bed of glowing coals just waiting to ignite into a glorious fire. But alas, it never really does. Not for me, anyhow.

I tried to like it—all of it. But it just didn't happen. In fairness to the band and to be honest: I just couldn't listen to every one of the final tracks in their entirety. I tried, but like tasting food samples that don't agree with your palate, you just cannot continue.

After about a week at Spotify, I revisited the approved 'masterpiece' Close to the Edge and its precursor, Fragile. Most critics say Fragile is the almost perfect bridge leading up to the perfection of Close to the Edge.

Suddenly it became clear. There is a time and a place where great things happen. And for Yes, it was in that magical, renaissance-hippie era of 1970s.

A hypothetical 1970s style band at their peak

But sadly, I have to say "not really" to Aurora in 2026. No aspiring hippie geniuses. No magic.

True, "Turnaround Situation" has a bit of a hook that sticks with you. Geez, it came to mind while I was mowing the lawn. But still, the rest of the album just doesn't quite take off. Or to borrow from my opening metaphor, it never bursts into flames.

Analog vs. Digital

Perhaps part of my response is simply an enthusiasm for analog gear and sounds. Apparently a perfect take for Close to the Edge was recorded on the organ at the Anglican church, St Giles' without Cripplegate. But alas, in all the confusion of tape editing, it was discarded in the rubbish bin. The engineer, Eddy Offord, had to meticulously splice together a mix of different takes, which you can still hear on the final album. 

Also, old tape machines operated at slightly different speeds, so you hear imperfections not known in the digital age. Listen, for example, to the original soundtrack for Shaft. Sure, there are plugins today to create the semblance of "wow and flutter," "vinyl scratch" or "tape hiss" but it's not quite the same as the real thing.

We arguably visualize, on some level, when we listen. When I hear a slightly imperfect analog mix or a volume level rise, I see a person manually operating the tape machines or someone behind a control board physically riding the faders. Conversely, in the digital age, I see someone drawing "automation" curves on a computer screen, getting it just the way they want through endless revisions. It's different, both sound wise and imaginally.

So What Actually Makes a Great Work of Art?

It's hard to say; and again, subjective. Society decides what is 'great,' sometimes for a season, sometimes for centuries. Yet some of our 'great' artists were not 'recognized' until long after they were gone. 

That's always sad. 

I was thinking of Mozart, probably one of the greatest composers ever to grace this planet, who had to worry about money! Yes, Mozart was recognized in his lifetime but not like a Taylor Swift or a Drake. Will they be revered in centuries to come? 

Then there are bands like CSNY and the Moody Blues, acts that after their heyday entered a slow decline. I tried to like their late-stage stuff, and on the momentum of what they achieved earlier, I sorta did. But eventually the nostalgia fades and the late material clearly doesn't measure up to the glory days.

Why? What happens? 

I used to think it was age. In pop music anyhow. Pop is obsessed with youth, and it often takes a young person to connect with a younger audience. Classical music, however, doesn't rely on youth; many composers actually improved with age. Or so most people would say.

But then I wonder: if Mozart had lived a long life, would he have lost his spark? Or if the Beatles hadn't split up, would they have gradually declined into something like "Cosmically Conscious"?

We cannot know. It didn't happen that way.

One challenge to the "age" theory comes with the Rolling Stones. I think their latest single, "In The Stars," is really quite good, and these guys are pushing 80.

So age isn't it. It's more about having what ancient Chinese philosophers called "The Mandate of Heaven." When you got it, you got it. Sure, you need technical skill to manifest it. But without that alignment with the great creative genius that is God, we’re left with technically competent work that, ultimately, is not too memorable.

Yes? 

No? 

What do you think?