I have a hunch that Art and its values are not as intangible as we may think (or like to think). I love analyzing film, music, poetry, and paintings: anything that made me experience or feel something, to understand why or how these magicians in Art were able to manipulate me. I've also read Plato on this subject. It's all in the rhetoric. That is why I'm so interested in technique, and translating it to more intangible emotions and ideas. Is the "spirituality" in Bach inherent in the music or contrived? I'd argue it is all contrived. It doesn't matter that he is a devote Lutheran, and probably believed what he wrote would speak to God, or whether it affects us in that way. He succeeded in getting the point across, and more: making us (or some of us) look beyond or feel something external. That is why I say Art is all manipulation, we are all suckers and can't help it. That is why I'm so against critics that are artificial (in my view) to keep drawing some unwarranted connections as if Art has a life of its own.
"Forgive me, Majesty. I'm a vulgar man. But I assure you, my music is not.“ Mozart
My art has to be absolutely clear and totally incomprehensible at the same time. But that's not really a value I guess?
What do I look for in art? Whether I like it. Whether it satisfies something in me.