How should a work of art be evaluated?
It should stand alone and not be compared to other 'perfected' works.
I think the way it makes you feel - the emotions it evokes, are much more important when evaluating art than the technical attributes.
I think there are many answers to this question. My evaluation is how it makes me feel and I have to have it!
I dont know. By comparing it to other artists work, but then how do you when everyones work is so different.
Can a small detail be changed without affecting the whole? If yes, then the piece is flawed.
Can its technique be easily replicated in variations by many other artists? If yes, then there is no mastery.
Everyone evalutes art work differently. For me, I first have an emotional response to the art and ask myself why. I then study the work in detail to understand and learn from the artist. I belong to a group that meets regularly at the Art Gallery of Ontario to discuss works of art in the Gallery's collections and special exhibits. They all evaluate art differently.
It is sad that "learned" people have come up with rules by which to judge art. Most of these, however, never create art. Each piece of art should be judged on its own merits. The untrained eye does this the best. Based on this I would say that the best judges of art would do well to see through the eyes of the viewers of art. It would be good if they could describe how the art that is being judged affects them. Perhaps that would be the key-for several judges to compare these thoughts and to come up with a better solution to the rules.
In the eyes of the beholder...I guess it differs for what purpose it's being evaluated. If you are a collector, it should move and speak to you. If you are a judge or gallery curator, it should do the above, plus successfully convey it's subject matter. I guess there's different ways of looking at the "hows and whys" of a piece.
For how well it balances thought/concept and object/actualization, intention and result.
The real beauty of art, I believe, is that it can be evaluated any way you like, by anyone at all. Art is what you want it to be.
Art evaluated? Sounds like an Oxi-Moron to me.
Art is like Beauty...it's all in the eyes of the beholder!
Skill, concept and impact on the viewer.
Does it provoke a response from the viewer? A second glance?
with your eyes and your gut and then your brain
I can't say I believe there is such a thing as good or bad art. But in a school setting, for example, I think art should be graded based on how much effort the person put into it, or what message they are trying to convey, or even if they enjoyed working on it. Taking risks and experimenting are also important when creating works of art, and those should be accounted for as well. |
| 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 >>
| |
|
99694 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS