I've come to the conclusion that the fundamental problem with labeling art as transcendent is that one has to assume that communication of meaning was pursued maximally by the artist. When we fail to consider this as observers we are at risk of merely experiencing an arbitrary limit placed on our perception by another human- either by the artist's capabilities, the artists understanding of the subject matter, or the limits of the medium- Or some combination thereof. In other words, is mystery still worthy of awe when it is only a mystery to some?