A process of communication with Art can’t be elementary. Art is some absolute that doesn’t succumb to logical reasoning. Human’s perception and thinking about it is rather relative, at the same time there exist eternal or absolute notions, as for example death, art, belief (by this I don’t imply elementary or conventional religion but the essence of everything which includes in itself all answers on main philosophical questions). Like every Absolute, Art exist outside human reason and has enormous potential energy. We humans are able to get charged from this source. (I think this somehow explains a purpose of existence of Absolutes). For instance, DEATH inspires homo sapiens for LIFE, we take an energy in order to use and enjoy our given lifetime before the fatal hour. Our belief in logical structure of the world makes us expect an existence of answers to the questions of the our being. So, the birth of philosophy, which in its turn what ever it is, is a pure faith even if in existence of principles which this philosophy attains. Art as an Absolute inspires artists, poets, or musicians to create. And this itself may serve as the answer on the essence of being. Art like every Absolute is subjective in our perception and it exist of the subject.
Creativity is a process of communications with Art. Every reproduction of Art, like for example poetry, music or a picture is not Art by itself but only in a sense of its purpose. This appears to be only a reflection of the Absolute. Therefore it is not the original. So, for instance we cannot compile ??? identify ourselves with our reflections in the mirror. No matter how precise the resemblance is, the reflection is only a reflection of the original. Therefore a picture is only a kind of a bridge between a subject and Art. In any case this reflection or reproduction does not explain anything but only constitute an appearance of energy of absolute.
But how to distinguish a fake from real reflection in the case of Art? The answer to this question cannot be simple and monosemantic. There are no objective premises for determining what we call a masterpiece. It has a conditional character and therefore the judgement is subjective too. On of the objective criteria of defining a masterpiece is, by my words, a “principle of catching”. For example, there are two pictures by one artist in front of you, approximately the same theme. One of the pictures is O’K, but another “catches” and you cannot explain why. Trying to find the answer we can expose the picture to theoretical analysis of its composition, interpretation, colours, etc. We can continue endlessly.
But are this criteria genuine? Can we explain why we love? If yes – it is not genuine love. The same is with a masterpiece. We feel some kind of attraction, we experience energy which evokes strong emotions, that we find ourselves in no state to reason or analyse, yes, in Art a priority belongs to feelings, to intuition rather then to logic.
Now we approach the next question. If we take an original, for example, a canvas of Van Gogh and would copy it precisely. Why I think it wouldn’t consider it to be a masterpiece? Because this would be a reflection of the reflection. Therefore it would stand even farther away from the Absolute. Like a reflection of a mirror’s reflection, for example, is less precise than the original and so forth. The more we reproduce, the less these reproduction has the original value. We can conclude that the rest value lies in the process itself of giving birth to novelty, in discovery itself. A genuine masterpiece gives us some kind of revelation, a strong feeling, but the more we get used to this feeling, the less value in this masterpiece would remain. In evaporates proportionally to our process of accustoming to it and a complete familiarity with this picture is equivalent to its death. And it is not a masterpiece any more.
Some may object and say that there exist eternal masterpiece which have not lost the strength to evoke deep emotional experience for centuries like works of Leonardo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh and other. I believe that they are no more masterpieces (at least for myself) but monuments to their past strength and glory. For those who are to used to them properly there won’t be any further revelation or novelty. So the pictures lost the power of influence upon the viewers. The King died and in homage to his achievement a monument has been erected. His contribution in Art has been appreciated and he is forever in our hearts and in History of Art. The Eternal can be only Absolute, only the Idea of Art and not the object itself.