Actually, I offered a brief stab at a definition for “great art”, argued that the form is irrelevant to greatness, and even tangentially defined “art” in post #33 of this thread. Said post also links to a more in-depth discussion on those topics.
You may have a point. But I think it’s virtually impossible to start with the premise that great art forms exist but to then argue that the novel isn’t one of them.
Jumping ahead some years… all of the following were finalists for, or won, major literary fiction awards like the National Book Award or the Pulitzer Prize. The film adaptations were of varying worth–some acclaimed, some falling short of their sources–but they happened, and it seems they continue to happen. For whatever that’s thought to signify.
The World According to Garp (1978 novel, 1982 film)
Birdy (1978 novel, 1984 film)
War and Remembrance (1978 novel, 1988 miniseries)
Sophie’s Choice (1980 novel, 1982 film)
The Mosquito Coast (1981 novel, 1986 film)
The Color Purple (1982 novel, 1985 film)
Ironweed (1983 novel, 1987 film)
The Accidental Tourist (1985 novel, 1988 film)
Lonesome Dove (1985 novel, 1989 miniseries)
That Night (1987 novel, 1992 film)
Beloved (1987 novel, 1998 film)
Billy Bathgate (1989 novel, 1991 film)
The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love (1989 novel, 1992 film)
The Joy Luck Club (1989 novel, 1993 film)
A Thousand Acres (1991 novel, 1997 film)
Bastard Out of Carolina (1992 novel, 1996 film)
All the Pretty Horses (1992 novel, 2000 film)
The Shipping News (1993 novel, 2001 film)
Cold Mountain (1997 novel, 2003 film)
American Pastoral (1997 novel, 2016 film forthcoming)
The Hours (1998 novel, 2002 film)
House of Sand and Fog (1999 novel, 2003 film)
Blonde (2000 novel, 2001 miniseries)
Empire Falls (2001 novel, 2005 miniseries)
The Road (2006 novel, 2009 film)
Olive Kitteridge (2008 novel, 2014 miniseries)
A Hologram for the King (2012 novel, 2016 film)
The Yellow Birds (2012 novel, 2016 film forthcoming)
Station Eleven (2014 novel, film in development)
Sure but there is no consensus. A substantial proportion of people would disagree with your definition. Maybe even a majority.
I am aware of that, which is why I haven’t tried to engage with the cloud of vaguely malodorous fog that everyone else is arguing over. I was just pointing out that someone had, in fact, attempted to set out a definition. The fact that it sank without a ripple led me to conclude that there was no point in pursuing it further. I’m not an artist or a philosopher; I merely presented my personal viewpoint on the matter.
Still, as long as I’m here, I may as make a last effort at clarification:
-
Art is that which is created for the purpose of evoking a specific emotional response from an audience.
-
The primary element in determining the quality of art is neither its popularity nor the skill in its execution, but in how well it evokes the intended response from the intended audience.
-
Great art is art which evokes the intended emotional response from audiences with substantially different cultural contexts from the intended audience. (Such as audiences of a different nationality, religion, or time period, for example.)
-
Corollary to (3), the greatness of a work of art is not dependent on its form, but on its ability to evoke a response from audiences.
If someone wants to take that as a baseline, or to argue against it, be my guest. Just don’t expect anything profound from me on the subject. 
Art doesn’t need to have an intended emotional response, and in fact most should not.
Art should require effort. Just dripping paint drops onto a canvas requires no effort.
(Corollary: If I can do it, it ain’t art.)
I do agree with the definition that art should invoke an emotional reaction in the viewer/listener/reader. Without an emotional attachment, it’s just an industrial product, like toilet paper. The emotional connection from creator to audience is key to the definition.
(The “emotion” can be remarkably rarefied. It doesn’t have to be a “primal” emotion. “Hm! That’s interesting!” is sometimes enough.)
Gosh this really shouldn’t devolve into a conversation about “what is art”. That way lies madness. But, and if you find this question interesting don’t answer it here, start a new thread:
Would you say that someone who produces a perfect reproduction of a great masterpiece is creating art? Why or why not?
Also, don’t discount your ability to create art.
Seriously? We have an OP that asks is X an example of Y, and we are agreed that there is no clear definition of Y, but you say that we shouldn’t discuss what Y is? How the heck can you decide if X is an example of Y if you don’t know what Y is?
If ever there was an example of a way down which lies madness, you have just proposed that route.
It’s almost like you want this discussion to be an amorphous muddle.
You think we are going to agree on a definition of what is great art and THEN discuss if novels fit? It’s not going to happen. You may be right that the OP can’t be answered as written without doing that. But we can reframe it to actually have a reasonable discussion. I made an attempt. I don’t know if the OP likes it.
We could all also just walk away. Or we could just poke fun at the OP.
To respond to each of your sentences in order:
No.
Agreed.
Yes.
How? How can you have a reasonable discussion about whether X is Y when you don’t know what Y is?
The poster said “intended emotional response”. It sounds totalitarian. Nobody who is making art would say that, unless it’s just any emotional response, not “intended”
You are right. I don’t think that the OP intended to ask that (though what else was intended is hard to imagine) , but ultimately the question actually asked was an unanswerable one.
Princhester asked if the term had been defined, thus inviting the issue. It is of value here at least to try.
??? Nobody? I can guarantee that some artists are deliberately trying to evoke an emotional response: horror writers! They’re trying to scare the skin off us!
Seriously, I can’t see how you get “totalitarian” out of it. Romance writers want to evoke tender emotions. SF and Fantasy authors want to evoke the “sense of awe and wonder.” Comedic playwrights want to evoke laughter. They may not always succeed, but they’re giving it a good old try.
I would say that’s craft not Art, capital A. I was responding to a limiting definition of it not examples in some set of it. (Art is not limited to those writers you are citing at all, thank god)
Art can’t be defined as someone trying to produce an emotion in another, unless you mean the “aesthetic emotion.”
Do you think Warhol was trying to create a certain emotion in a person? What was it?
Seems an odd way to define art. In my opinion art is human activity that isn’t strictly practical. Parts of form that aren’t essential for function are artistic. Now whether or not art is great or base, entertaining or boring, is strictly subjective in my opinion as well.
With the soup cans, I think it was laughter.
More seriously, I think “appreciation of beauty” is a valid emotional communication. When we see, say, a lovely landscape painting, it gives us a kind of contentment.
Warhol took everyday things and wrapped them in the iconography of Great Art. That juxtaposition sets up a wonderful tension between amusement and reflection on our popular culture and its place in our lives. He knew what he was doing.
It feels like the OP is looking to explore the status of the Novel as a vital art form. I haven’t read the linked essay by Will Self, but in some ways, the novel has been a tippie-top art form that appears to be going through a “decline in popular relevance.”
I suppose the question might be: if the novel can go from the Harvard of art forms to the “Solid State College” of art forms ;), was it ever really a great art form to begin with?
Now, there are tons of definitions required to have a decent conversation about that, but it is an interesting discussion.
I do believe that novels have become less relevant as a byproduct of the cheap accessibility to cameras, bandwidth/shareability, and the development of visual communication platforms from Instagram to Netflix. Novels are harder to do, and require a form of engagement that is a big investment of time and focus.
I do believe that novels are a Truly Great art form. Current popular relevance is not a top criteria I think should be used in appreciating an art form.
I also believe that the stream of Great Novels will continue. Some will be popular within their specific audiences. Some will, occasionally, crossover in to the cultural mainstream. The Harry Potter and 50 Shades phenomena both point to how novels can crossover. There have been other books over the past few years that have been “media events” to varying degrees. So it goes and will continue.
I do not believe that the medium makes a given creation great or pedestrian. Is sculpture a “Great Art Form?” Great art is created in sculpture, but also a great deal more pointless crap. Same with the novel.
Great art can be created in any medium.
I agree that aesthetic awe is in play, but that is the only emotion you can pin down.
There are many ugly works of art, and the intentions are not reducable to anything except “This is my art”.