Description
What do you see?
When describing an artwork you must stick with the facts. Include things like the objects, people, shapes, and colors that you and others can see. Do not include opinions.
Analysis
How is it organized?
Analysis has to do with pointing out the relationships among the things you and others can see in an artwork. Do they clash or harmonize? Are they balanced? Is there variety? Is there unity without monotony?
Interpretation
What is it saying?
To interpret an artwork is to explain the meaning of it: What is it expressing? What is the content? This is perhaps the most creative part of criticism.
Sometimes we have to be indirect, to resort to the use of metaphor, to explain the meaning of a work.
In art, there is often “more to it than meets the eye.”
Evaluation
Is it successful?
The purpose of evaluation is to determine the quality of a work.
The question is what criteria – what standards – should be used to decide whether an artwork is excellent?
Let’s discuss some of the criteria critics have used:
Formalism uses the elements and principles of design as a criterion in art criticism.
Expressiveness refers to how effectively the work expresses or reflects a theme or worldview.
Originality is a judgment about the works inventiveness or novelty. Does it display a fresh theme, or a fresh treatment of an old theme? Is the medium unique in some way?
Critique: Guernica
Is it successful?
There is no single cluster of criteria for judging excellence in art. Different kinds of art require different criteria, and there are different schools of thought about what is good art. Still, when you evaluate an artwork, state your reasons. Your reasons should be grounded in the information and analyses you assembled from the first three stages of this criticism method.
What do you see?
How is it organized?
What is it saying?