It takes lot's of time, problem is people don't have time, art is like a tree, it stands there and does not fall for 300 years, storms and all and only when it falls, or dies do people say, o what a pity such a nice tree, i will miss it...only the people, the public the crowds should evaluate, that said many public works should be stored if they are not apreciated by most, noticed i did not say "trashed" i don't believe in the death penalty, and the masses ( mostly alienated and uneducated ) don't make good solid juries...but we all know how to evaluate art, it comes naturaly like loving, no one has to teach anyone how to love and cherish, yet so many people make a living from evaluation, economic is that the question ? because when i hear the word "evaluation"most of the time it envolves money, no ?
If you like it or if you find it interesting.- but that's my opinion.
Work of art should be enjoyed , critics and people with money can evaluate
through a feeling
There are two way of evaluated, one for yourself and other is society value. You can be both and be one of them, but both need originality expression which nobody see or feel before, so they feel discover something new.
from artist the many time
By the process, and by the viewer
There's no "should" about evaluation. We all decide, though sometimes subconsciously, whether a work of art interests us. We have evaluated a work of art the moment it fails to hold our gaze.
Let the market decide.
if it's being judged - a vote of 3. If it's by the public - how it appeal to ones' senses
by the individual
havent a clue but neither has any one else
By the integrity of its execution, the appeal of its form and colors, the strength of its composition and its spiritual-emotional content.
all it has to do is strike you, strike you in some powerful way, any different way.
It would be great if art was evaluated on many levels simultaneously that actually made sense. So far I haven't seen that happen. When you study history, you realize how true that is.