So, in the above post Iām saying that many concur with the fact that the work is of value, hence the selling price. Nowhere did I say that the work is of value because of the selling price. Do you see the difference?
Of value? Like Madonnaās navel lint is of value - since enough tragics would be prepared to pay huge sums for it? It doesnāt have any bearing on whether Pollock is actually great art, or art at all.
I fail to see any possible reason you even introduced the issue of selling price unless you thought it was somehow relevant to the greatness of Pollockās art as art - since thatās what weāre arguing about. As it is, its selling price is irrelevant since it merely relates to its value as a commodity per se.
Because the work wasnāt understood initially.
Because Pollock did it first. Plain and simple. He was the one to make the statement. It was his idea. Thatās how the contemporary art world works. People are primarily buying concepts much of the time.
But WHY wasnāt it understood initially if the criteria of what makes great art are clear and objective? Surely if they are then his value shouldāve been immediately obvious.
No-one failed to understand Newtonās theory of gravity or Einsteinās theory of relativity when these were first introduced, merely because they ādid it firstā, because their value, by the criteria of science, was self-evident, science being an extremely objective field of endeavour.
What you are saying here seems to be that the criteria of what makes āgreat artā of a particular type or genre are in fact made up after the (subjective) fact of the artist being admired and approved.
Iād be willing to bet that if a new unknown painting were brought to light, in fact painted by the great Pollock but claimed to be painted by myself, it would NOT be called great art nor fetch a price commensurate with the average price of his authenticated works. Much more importantly, it would almost certainly not be automatically hailed as āgreat artā - I would bet my house on it. In fact Iād bet that it would NOT be hailed as great art, even if, coming from the sainted Pollock it in fact would be such by your āobjectiveā criteria.
Again, Iād like to talk about religious art. So, I ask you once more, what makes for great religious art, Lil? Any ideas?
Youāre not seriously asking my opinion on the topic of religious art, that much is obvious.
Without having established that there is such a thing as objective criteria by which ANY art, religious or otherwise, can be definitively judged (how about you answer my questions first - where are these criteria written down? Who determines what they are? What qualifies them to pronounce on the topic? And where can I find them and read them?)
Now I assume youād agree that secular art work can be done for the honor and glory of God, but it has a very different intent and a different messages for the viewer.
I canāt seem to just cut and paste here. 
When I do figure it out, perhaps Iāll start a new thread.