Do you have criteria for assessing art?

[nakulanb]

I do.  It is as follows:

Do I find it to create an interesting world that I don't find forced which I happen to fancy.

[nakulanb]

Any thoughts?

[Karl Henning]

What do I admire about the composition? (technique, architecture, musical language, overall result)
What impact do I register from the piece?
If it is based on/similar to an earlier model, is there value added?

I may make the odd addition, as I have my doubts that I've "said it all" so briefly.

[LKB]

For me, specific criteria depend on both the medium and the message.

For instance, whereas I've had years of academic training and professional experience in the performance of Western music, I've none at all in sculpture. Therefore, my assessment of any given sculpture is limited to its aesthetic and emotional impact, without regard to specific qualities in its execution. I like it or l don't, but may not be able to coherently articulate specific reasons for my reaction.

For any given piece of Western music, the rules are changed as I've had enough learning and practical experience ( listening and performing ) to 1) evaluate a piece and its performance, and 2) express the results of the evaluation in a manner useful to layman and musician alike.

So the bar is lower for non- musical art, but criteria are still in place.

[San Antone]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

[Mandryka]

I do.  It is as follows:

Do I find it to create an interesting world that I don't find forced which I happen to fancy.

I can see how that's a valuable idea to explore in meaningful art forms, where a world can be represented somehow  - things like figurative painting, and obviously literature. But I'm not at all clear how to apply it to art forms with no semantic content like some dance and of course, some musics.

There's no reason to expect that there are intra- generic principles for evaluating art works, after all there's not much shared between, let's say, dance and architecture. So world creation may be the basis of evaluation in some but not all genres.

That being said, my own view is that it's best to avoid evaluation of art works completely - apart from financial evaluation of course, which is clearly the main driver in painting and sculpture. Of course, some things are for me more appealing than others, but that changes all the time, depending, for example, on what I've had for lunch and what the weather's like. That sort of "evaluation" says something about me, not about the picture or the book.

[Mirror Image]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

+ 1 This is the jest of it for me as well.

[nakulanb]

I can see how that's a valuable idea to explore in meaningful art forms, where a world can be represented somehow  - things like figurative painting, and obviously literature. But I'm not at all clear how to apply it to art forms with no semantic content like some dance and of course, some musics.

There's no reason to expect that there are intra- generic principles for evaluating art works, after all there's not much shared between, let's say, dance and architecture. So world creation may be the basis of evaluation in some but not all genres.

That being said, my own view is that it's best to avoid evaluation of art works completely - apart from financial evaluation of course, which is clearly the main driver in painting and sculpture. Of course, some things are for me more appealing than others, but that changes all the time, depending, for example, on what I've had for lunch and what the weather's like. That sort of "evaluation" says something about me, not about the picture or the book.

With dance, think costumes, sets and expression of movements.  Michael Jackson is one of my favorite dancers (don't care for his music though) but he really expressed himself fully in this art form.

All music creates color, some of it is more unique and interesting than others, and that's what's valuable to me.

[Mandryka]

With dance, think costumes, sets and expression of movements.  Michael Jackson is one of my favorite dancers (don't care for his music though) but he really expressed himself fully in this art form.

All music creates color, some of it is more unique and interesting than others, and that's what's valuable to me.

The point about colour is a new one and I'll think about it. And yes some sorts of dance are representative so I can see that it creates imaginative worlds - that's why I said some dance. But then there's Merce Cunningham and . . .

[nakulanb]

The point about colour is a new one and I'll think about it. And yes some sorts of dance are representative so I can see that it creates imaginative worlds - that's why I said some dance. But then there's Merce Cunningham and . . .

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKK6RLGp1k

Wild isn't it?

[nakulanb]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

I tried this for a long time, but my mind and heart were having battles with each other.  Sometimes my mind would like it, but my heart wouldn't or vice versa. 

So I discovered the criteria for myself that satisfies both.

[Iota]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

+2

I couldn't have put it better.

Interesting thread, nakulanb! And welcome! 

[Karl Henning]

Very nice thread.

[nakulanb]

Thanks all.

[Mandryka]

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKK6RLGp1k

Wild isn't it?

Try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgdXOg2bTEs&ab_channel=FESTIVALDAUTOMNE

or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKPglqs3B8&ab_channel=balletfriends

[nakulanb]

Try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgdXOg2bTEs&ab_channel=FESTIVALDAUTOMNE

or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKPglqs3B8&ab_channel=balletfriends

I really enjoyed the second one with Satie's music.

[prémont]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

Yes, and this should be the purpose of art. If some art doesn't touch me, it may be me, and I don't mind, and I don't have criteria for assesing whether it is me or the artist (composer, painter, author or whatever). There is so much art in the widest sense (music, painting, sculpture et.c.) to be occupied with, and a lifetime isn't much in that perspective.

[vandermolen]

It has to move me emotionally and/or make me think.

[VonStupp]

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

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech.

Then ask two questions:
  1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered
      and
  2) How important is that objective?

Question 1 rates the poem's perfection;
Question 2 rates its importance.

And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through poetry, practice this rating method.

As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry.

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

[Florestan]

My criteria is the same for any music, art, literature, films, etc. - does the work engage my mind and/or touch my heart.

+ 3.