Do you have criteria for assessing art?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

The assessment of art is an enigma to me. Historically, philosophy of art has focused on beauty, emotional impact, social value, and historical significance. However, some of the great art works are not particularly "beautiful", while some beautiful things are not art works. Also, not all of the great art works make us emotional. Some of them don't and they are still great art. Plus, some news articles and sports games make us emotional. The emotional impact on the subject may be scarcely related to the value of object.  Even if we all (subject) die and disappear, great art works remain great. Some of art works convey meaningful social, often humanistic, messages. But non-art does that too and some artworks don't. Some art works may have exerted meaningful impact on society and/or art history. But some great works have not.
I personally belong to a modified school of metaphysics. I tend to think that great art works present super-natural, metaphysical dimension/features which is beyond worldly merit.

[Karl Henning]

If I use the Dr. J. Evans Pritchard scale of Understanding Poetry, I think it could relate to other arts:

I wonder what the graph would look like comparing Beethoven to Chopin.
A Happy Sunday to all!  VS

Well played, my Captain!

[Karl Henning]

The assessment of art is an enigma to me. Historically, philosophy of art has focused on beauty, emotional impact, social value, and historical significance. However, some of the great art works are not particularly "beautiful", while some beautiful things are not art works. Also, not all of the great art works make us emotional. Some of them don't and they are still great art. Plus, some news articles and sports games make us emotional. The emotional impact on the subject may be scarcely related to the value of object.  Even if we all (subject) die and disappear, great art works remain great. Some of art works convey meaningful social, often humanistic, messages. But non-art does that too and some artworks don't. Some art works may have exerted meaningful impact on society and/or art history. But some great works have not.
I personally belong to a modified school of metaphysics. I tend to think that great art works present super-natural, metaphysical dimension/features which is beyond worldly merit.

I dig it. Insofar as I "assess" art, I suppose I'm thinking (or feeling) "what does it mean to my work?

[vandermolen]

Well played, my Captain!

+1 

[VonStupp]

Well played, my Captain!

+1 

Ha Ha! I am glad someone caught this!

In search for that graphic on how to assess art, I came across an article that defends Dr. J. Evans Pritchard's scale for artistic greatness in relation to writing effective blog posts:

https://integraphy.co/in-defense-of-the-pritchard-scale/

[Karl Henning]

Ha Ha! I am glad someone caught this!

In search for that graphic on how to assess art, I came across an article that defends Dr. J. Evans Pritchard's scale for artistic greatness in relation to writing effective blog posts:

https://integraphy.co/in-defense-of-the-pritchard-scale/

(* chortle *)

[foxandpeng]

There is an element of subjectivity and personal taste in art. The eye of the beholder matters. For me, the questions below are relevant. Not all apply to everything but most usually do. I also appreciate the questions of social value and historical significance.

Does it have structure and skill, showing mastery of some sort?

Does it move me?

Is it beautiful?

Is it inspiring?

Is it memorable?

Do I want more of it?

Does it have longevity?

[ritter]

All pertinent questions.

And another one: Is it expensive? 

[Karl Henning]

All pertinent questions.

And another one: Is it expensive? 

(* chortle *)

[foxandpeng]

All pertinent questions.

And another one: Is it expensive? 

Hehe

[LKB]

Art is only expensive when it fails.