It might seem like a little thing but it's a compliment

Paul Cantor, in his thoughtful post [Medium link] on the topic, essentially argues that, for the most part, "great" art has a shelf life.

More often than not, most great art, the best art, from years past — whether it’s one year, two year, or fifty years — does not meet expectations. You go in with the hopes you’ll experience greatness, but come away disappointed.

He laments that things remains "great" only until the context inside which they were deemed great remain unchanged. He gives examples of these (temporarily) great works of art like a Richard Pryor joke or a 70s movie which no longer seems all that seminal when rewatched in the 21st century.

So, it’s hard to press upon others how good something is or isn’t, in retrospect.

This observation of his made me wonder when it became okay for the lay person to anoint something as "great". As I observed in a comment on his post, that people are willing to stick their neck out and call something great talks to a very positive force in their lives - the force of education and awareness.

In a more narrow viewed world, people seldom have the self confidence to call something "great" without resorting to authority. They have seen, heard, observed enough "good enoughs" to form a value judgement that what they are witnessing or witnessed is better than the "good enoughs", ergo, "great".

Though Paul does not question it per se, his post casts doubt in the mind of anyone wishing to introduce their friends to "great" lest they be superciliously told that it was "great...for it's time."

Instead, we should celebrate the spreading of culture. We should be happy that enough "good enoughs" have percolated into general consciousness to make "great" stand out.