How should a work of art be evaluated?
by loving the work,feel it and how u r honest with it
A viewer of paintings considers it In the same way it is created.... by seeing, feeling, and responding.
If a piece of work still turns you on after 3 viewings, it has the quality to become a piece of art...
By the subjective reaction of the individual viewer, whether they are the artist or not.
First and the most important, if you like it or not.
Secondly, by its craftmanship.
Third, if the person evaluating it has seen a lot, but a lot of art before.
Personally.
That is not my job.
I'm not sure it should be. Who am I or anyone for that matter to evaluate a piece. it just comes down to whether you like it or dislike it. whether it touches you personally, for whatever reason, in a way you like. If a piece touches me and reminds me of how i was hit by a car and lost the use of my leggs. that might not be a feeling I enjoy. So I might not like that piece.
WITH EMOTION AND PURE MIND
Depends why you're evaluating it?
Are you an artist looking to learn something about the artist's techniques? Are you an art historian looking to categorize it? A gallery owner judging whether it'd sell and fit the style of your gallery? A person who wants a picture on your wall?
Do you like it?
All of it often comes down to personal taste even when it is elaborated by complex criteria of art historians and art teachers. There is a huge, almost infinite bag of tricks artists use to make a picture interesting, attractive and cool. They can be indexed and labeled or they can be understood and used intuitively. One problem is that technical criteria are not, any of them, exclusive.
I dislike it when personal taste gets puffed up and treated as if it's technical criteria. There are some craft elements that may matter a lot -- durability and lightfastness of supports and pigments do matter to the ultimate value of an artwork if the original is the important thing -- not so much if an illustration is printed and the prints are the originals.
There are craftmanship criteria like whether perspective or accuracy of rendering are judged and tricks for accomplishing those. Go to another culture and they are handled differently. Study Asian art and you have a new view on everything that'll revitalize Western artists. Or vice versa.
But at the heart of it there's being who you are and liking what you do.   | | |
A work of art should be evaluated by dividing its social or political worthlessness by the square root of its aesthetic indispensability.
I believe we were created to be relational people, so if a piece of art stirs emotion, feelings, or a response in someone, then that artwork has value. "Viewing" art should be active; it should open communication or dialogue between the canvas (or other medium) and the viewer.
Personally, does the piece touch or move the viewer? I think that if an artist has accomplished this that there has to be a certain level of mastery present.
through the knowledge of History of Art
everybody has different approach towards art evaluation. due to varied experiences.
For me how an art work speaks to me I evaluate that perticular piece through the dialogue or conversation. |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>
| |
|
99763 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS