Old wine in new bottle..
Imagination is extremely complex. It has been one of our eternal battles to bridge the gap between imagination, as such, and the various forms of representing imagination - like language, actions etc.

In this sense, any form of art is one such attempt.

The quality of art, if there is anything like that, depends on two things.

- the complexity and beauty of the imagination..
- the closeness of representation of the complexity and nature..

By 'beauty' - I mean that undefined thing, which even as they say "is in the eye of the beholder" - seems to also have the inherent nature of having a common thread running across a lot of human minds.. "Beauty" is thus better left undefined.. Its a 'primitive concept' - so to say! :)

So then, the quality of art, I feel, depends on the nature of the thing it represents and the ability of the art to represent it as closely as possible. Among the two parameters, the first one, I would say is dependent on the artist and hence is difficult to quantify. It is the second parameter that makes me wonder...

Makes me wonder, which art form is the best - when it comes to representing imagination to the closest?

Many times when we say something is great art, we are actually referring to the artist than to the art. Can we eliminate the genius of the artist and just look at the art? Simply put, is it possible to qualify one art form as better than another?