What is art and what is not? It depends partly on what is, and partly on what one insists ought to be. Art isn't just so much in the mind of the beholder, but in his or her beliefs and value judgments. What is otherwise on the canvas is just paint, or ink on the photo, or the metal of a sculpture, or words on a page.
 
Now that one insists art ought to be suited to their 'system', and their beliefs, does not demand, necessarily, dishonesty, trendiness, nor 'political correctness'. It need not. But it might often work out that way. It need not imply ignorance of what the artisan does, of what is rare or difficult instead of common and easy, though one might prefer some 'art' because one doesn't know any better or has no standard for comparison. It need not even imply clannishness, nor the look at what "my little Jimmy" got the local gallery to exhibit. Historically, art was often commissioned. And certainly there would be expectations about what the portrait ought to be, when completed. The artist may have thought one thing, his customer another, in some cases.
 
Yet there's something apart from the often nasty prejudice that encourages some in their 'art' and discourages others, rightly or wrongly. And that is even if a trendy portrait painter commands good reviews and high auction prices, ultimately, there may be less art than salesmanship or class fad. On the other hand, oftentimes, art in various forms might be encouraged partly for a philosophy it seems to support, but also for a sense in its admirers that this is something special, and worth encouraging while the artist is alive - art.
 
It's that difference between art and skill, or if one prefers between art, and masterpiece. Skill might refer to a cereal box cover art, or an exercise in an art school class in pottery making. The skill in producing a slick R & B 'soul' tune, from some decades ago, might not rule out art, in portions or all. There might be art present in all, or the possibility of it. But it might not be that, as well. It might be even worse than common, empty; unless even that is something to which a patron might return time and again.
 
So generally we can say that art inspires, and uplifts the soul. If one disagrees with that, then much of what isn't art, will be called art. But it's more than that, as well. Again, as suggested, we can say art is not so personal, so idiosyncratic, that only a few can appreciate it, among those who otherwise are appreciative of and support great art. But if something informs, but doesn't inspire, it's just a public service announcement. If it's a figure from history, it may be artwork but otherwise just a statue, if there's nothing more to it than that. Or if the reaction to the message is one of loathing for the artist and his message, it may be at one end that the artist is right - or that his piece, and his message, at the far end are just a mockery of art, in the name of art. Few would think the 'emotion' of militaristic or bigoted propaganda relevant to a judgment of the work, when the bigotry is, rather, the too superificial and blunt insult, and the hateful cliche goes no further than that. Art is that to which one returns, not something one consumes.
 
And now having said all of that, clearly art can also appeal to emotions of grief and distress, and so much else. And in doing so, it can also uplift, as with the folk music called the, 'blues', in various forms. Or it can simply show a moment in time, in a photograph, or even more by way of suggestion in a painting, that dwells on that misery or regret, or whatever it may be. But the uplifting is even the spark it provides, even as caution; a masterpiece, something which is never simply seen or heard and forgotten.
 
In either case, a lesser art - a study - may simply intrigue us with novel angles and materials. It may encourage us with scenes and lighting, and to explore on our own the subject, or the artist's method for oneself. And then other aspects appear. There may be many things presented, at once, maybe not even all intentionally placed by the artist. So even here, one returns to the piece. It might not inspire a lifelong study of this one piece, or even of the artist. But one's life is changed, to varying degrees. The piece has changed the art you will make.
 
Is a masterpiece relative, then? Is it a competition? Perhaps. And so there are greater and lesser masters, not always corresponding to the greater or lesser art. But as a masterpiece, or the lesser works of a master, less unintentional would seem to appear, not having room in the careful schemes, and levels, and views imagined and realized by the artist; after so much study, and so much of an innate gift, and with so much inspiration to draw on himself or herself. The masters in anything may well leave little room for the unexpected, as they themselves create the art. They know too much. They know all the mistakes. They what to correct, and what to manipulate. They know all the tricks, more than even another person so skilled might perceive even upon returning to that piece. They see the big picture, and small, and all the angles. Their experience and talent, can be appreciated by those who will never possess the same. Perhaps they let you discover things, even in a certain way and order, as you consider a masterpiece. The more this is so, the more one returns, and learns, and yes - even changes - the more it ought to be termed, a masterpiece.
 
But if it is all a matter of viewpoint, value judgments, larger opinion on the oughts of life, how can one speak of masterpieces? The great tie that binds, itself, is rejected at least rhetorically, by many. But it is conscience. It is the reality of our situation in this world, what people do as a tragedy against what they say, or as childish hypocrisy at best. So art, and that masterpiece, causes you to think, to confront yourself or untested opinions, in the light of what is real for all of us. Some will take one thing away, and return for something of the same. Others will change. But art makes you wonder and stand in awe of things you didn't before appreciate. It can challenge those beliefs, and reveal missteps made in acquiring them. It can reveal the truth in all those little things we ignore. Or it can show great history in ways you hadn't imagined. But the masterpiece does this unforgettably. Great art. It stays with you your entire life. To you - it's a masterpiece. It remains so, as you learn more about it, as the years go by. It's not infatuation. There is something there, and more and more as you appreciate it over time. It cannot be 'consumed'. It cannot be thrown away on a wall, or stuffed back into the cover, forgotten. It can't be forgotten. It wasn't a 'study tool', or merely suggestive of a 'method' that appeared interesting. No, you die thinking it, all those years later, an extraordinary work of art. You write papers on it. You learn new things, from it. You marvel at it, year after year. You wish to protect it. You do so all your life.
 
May we all discover at least one masterpiece.