Total Art Soul - for artists

This question may serve as a constructive point of departure for quiet contemplation while waiting on that next creative idea:

"What is it that sets apart certain works of art as 'timeless' or 'universally appealing,' as opposed to those that, for whatever reason, seem to fall by the wayside?"

I know there's bound to be a gazillion thoughts on the reasoning, so it should prove interesting to see how the discussion morphs as it goes along. I'm hoping it will give everyone a chance to snatch up a few pearls of wisdom along the way that somehow dovetail into a personal inventory of broader perception that enhances individual approach to their own unique style.

I guess it's anything that's relatively 'traditional' and that shows real skill. I recently looked at the top 10 most sold and common subjects of paintings and landscapes was at the top followed by nudes. These are still very traditional subjects and will keep their appeal for many years to come.

I don't think it's a case of traditional IMHO i think art that is timeless is something done by the artist that isn't based on current trend, many artists/illustrators and designers create something solely because it is what the current trend is.
There are different types of collectors too, some that collect for investment, some for the pleasure and others because it goes with the latest Decor for the current season.
Thats my 2 cents worth.

Interesting takes on it so far. What I was thinking is along the lines of why or how some of the most globally recognized artworks have attained that status. Examples: Mona Lisa (DaVinci), The Scream (Munch), Starry Night (van Gogh), The Great Wave (Hokusai), Lady of Shallot (Waterhouse).

I agree there's an ageless fascination with the female form in its many varieties, so I can see that one being a common theme. Judging from the others I briefly listed, though, they almost seem to mimic the 'old standbys' of theater ~ human tragedy, fear, love, etc.

Traditional landscapes often bore me, unless there is some remarkable energy about them. I've only ever purchased one landscape painting, and that was for what the artist didn't paint -- she left much to the imagination, and drew me to wonder what was past the trees on the other side of the hill. I can still stare at that painting that hangs in my living room, and dream.

This sort of thing is hard to quantify. I don't know if this painting has universal appeal; some visitors to my house don't even notice it, but others do, and comment.

I almost wish there was a formula -- almost -- because I'd love to use it in my sculptures! Even though most of my work is fantasy and appeals to a niche group, I want it to have that je ne sais quoi that makes it not-just-another-dragon-sculpture.

re: "...je ne sais quoi..." ~ If that could be done in 3D (sculpture) it would be phenomenal. Example: I often see dragons as a metaphor that symbolizes their personality - menacing, aloof, timeless/wise, trickster, etc. Imagine, if you can, a dragon with a "Mona Lisa smile" that simultaneously seems to be showing sarcasm, tyranny, sincerity and wonderment.

The thing you mentioned about the composition of the painting is something I keep going back to, as in: Rather than an 'in your face' composition, does it work better to depict just enough to grab attention, but leave significant parts out in order to coax a viewer to mentally fill in the missing parts so it becomes 'personalized' to the individual?

Whether by accident or intent, I find a lot of my things lacking a definitive subject. At first it's annoying to me personally, but after a while it seems to allow the creation to take on a life of its own. Hard to explain but I think you get an idea.