In this blog post, we will look at various methods of critiquing works of art and the corresponding approaches to appreciation.
There are various discussions on how to appreciate and critique works of art. The interpretation and judgment of the meaning and value of a work of art depend on the purpose and attitude of the critique. The main methods of criticism of artworks include contextual criticism, formalism, and impressionism.
Contextual criticism focuses mainly on the social and historical background in which the artwork was created. Critic Ten considers the environment, political, economic, and cultural circumstances of the era in which the artist lived when the artwork was created, as well as the impact of the artwork on society, as important grounds for criticism of artworks. This is because artworks embody the symbols and beliefs of the culture to which the artist belongs and reflect the characteristics of the society in which the artist lives. In addition, contextual criticism analyzes and interprets artworks based on as much information as possible, including the historical context in which the artwork was created, as well as the artist’s psychological state and ideology.
However, contextualism, which attempts to critique works based on objective data, has been criticized for focusing too much on factors external to the work, thereby undermining its core essence. Formalism and impressionism are two approaches that attempt to overcome the shortcomings of contextualism. Formalist criticism emphasizes the analysis of the formal elements of a work of art and the structural organicity between those elements, rather than external factors. Formalist critics such as Fried argue that the criteria for judging the excellence of a work of art are not the content, such as the objects, people, and landscapes expressed in the work, but rather the formal elements, such as lines, colors, and forms, and the formal principles, such as proportion, rhythm, and emphasis.
Formalist criticism focuses on the visual elements that make up a work of art and analyzes how these elements interact to create a coherent whole. It emphasizes the internal completeness and formal beauty of a work of art and attempts to exclude the viewer’s subjective feelings from the understanding of the work. This approach encourages a high appreciation of the aesthetic value of artworks themselves. However, formalist criticism also has its limitations, as it can overlook the depth of content and emotional response to a work if it focuses too much on form.
Impressionist criticism is skeptical of all analytical criticism and believes that art cannot be judged by rules or objective data. As the French critic said, “A good critic relates great works to the adventures of his own soul.” Impressionist criticism is when critics express their thoughts and feelings with autonomy and creativity, regardless of the perspectives of other prominent critics. In other words, impressionist critics interpret and judge works with unlimited imagination and freedom of will, without considering the artist’s intentions or other external factors.
Understanding the various approaches to art criticism is an important factor in art appreciation. Each of these methods of criticism has its own advantages and disadvantages and can be applied in different ways depending on the situation. Those who appreciate artworks need to understand and appreciate them from various perspectives by harmoniously utilizing multiple critical methods rather than a single fixed perspective. Ultimately, it is important to remember that art criticism is not simply a process of judging the superiority of a work, but a process of discovering broader meanings and values through the work and deeply exploring various aspects of art.
Through this, works of art transcend mere objects of appreciation and become important mediators that enable deep communication with the viewer. This approach will enrich viewers’ understanding of works of art and greatly help them discover the true meaning and value of art.
