I’ve been studying art and the history of art, and I found this to be a very interesting view.
‘Manifestly art by its very nature is not concerned with explicit formalisation or a one to one correspondence with reality, for it depends on an element of artificiality or even estrangement from nature. To be a work of art something must be able to set the human imagination free from its imprisonment in the mimetic forms in which we are inevitably implicated, and thus provide the occasion for those appreciating it to transcend the limitations of their own place in space and time. But when the imagination becomes completely detached from the compelling claims of our actual existence in space and time, it becomes merely a meaningless dream, indulged in for its own sake like a fanciful game. A genuine work of art must have a grip upon reality in its depth, while declining to reduce that grip to explicit formalisation, and so by its nature indicates far more than it can imaginatively depict to people at the time. In this way, however, a work of art is so full of meaning that it commands a universal range of appreciation in time as well as space, so that though it may have been produced in some ancient culture it continues to be appreciated and understood, for it lifts the mind of each generation to a level of reality that is invariant for each and every generation.’ (T.F. Torrance, ‘Reality and Scientific Theology’, pp. 101)
I detect a note of Schopenhauer here.