Steven Schwartz wrote:

>I'm not trying to be "objective" or "ontological" (trying to know the thing
>in itself) because value - which is really what "greatness" is all about -
>does not reside in the object itself.  It's something a human being confers
>on the object.

How about we say that "greatness" is a quality that attaches to an art
work as a result of a really long period of both popularity and high
opinion that has made it more or less immune to changes in fashion? This
after all is the common definition of "classic." Maybe "greatness" is
nothing more than a synonym for "classic." Apologies if someone else has
already mentioned this.  Of course, it begs the question, doesn't it? Now
we'll go round and round about what qualities make a work "classic." "Of
timeless value...enduring appeal...encourages what's best in us..." But
those aren't really qualities as much as they are statements about our
(collective) relation to the work.  In order to answer the question we need
to know what it is we're looking for in an art work, and when we find that
out, we'll know which works satisfy those needs to the fullest degree.

Chris Bonds