[qiskit]

> The problem is that this is very much a rear-view mirror perspective.

But analyzing art is a rear-view mirror perspective. History judges what is great art. Not the present audience.

You ramble about the same thing over and over again - human condition. Sure. That's a part of it. Silly pop music, formulaic romance novels, etc all have that. But what separates actual great art from entertaining art is it's affect on language/culture/thought/etc.

Whether marvel movies will be considered great art has nothing to do with "human condition" or how it emotionally affected the audience today. It'll be judged in time by its affect on language/culture/thought/etc. Any silly drone can create art that touches on the human condition. That's the easy part.

Shakespeare's hamlet, romeo and juliet, etc aren't considered great art because it "moves" you.

> and great art taps into this unchanging set of idealized forms.

No. Practically every art does.