There are three main approaches to criticizing a work of art: contextualism, formalism, and impressionism. Each approach focuses on the social context, formal elements, and subjective impressions of a work of art, and aims to delve deeper into the true meaning and value of art through different perspectives.
There are many different discussions on how to appreciate and criticize a work of art. The interpretation and judgment of the meaning and value of a work of art depends on the purpose and attitude of criticizing it. The main methods of criticizing a work of art are contextualist criticism, formalist criticism, and impressionist criticism.
Contextualist criticism is primarily concerned with the social and historical context in which a work of art was created. Critic Ten considers the environment, political, economic, and cultural conditions of the artist’s time, and the effect of the work on society as important grounds for criticizing a work of art. This is because he believes that artworks embody the symbols and beliefs of the culture to which the artist belongs, and reflect the characteristics of the society to which the artist belongs. In addition, contextualist criticism analyzes and interprets artworks based on as much data as possible, including the psychological state and ideology of the artist in addition to the circumstances of the time in which the artwork was created.
However, contextualism is criticized for focusing on objective data, which may undermine the core essence of the artwork by focusing on external factors. To overcome these problems with contextualist criticism, formalist criticism and impressionist criticism are two methods. Formalist criticism emphasizes the analysis of the formal elements of a work of art and the structural organicity between them, rather than the external factors of the work. Formalist critics, such as Fried, argue that it is the formal elements of a work of art, such as line, color, and form, and the principles of composition, such as proportion, rhythm, and emphasis, that determine its excellence, rather than the content of the objects, people, or landscapes depicted in the work.
Formalist criticism focuses on the visual elements that make up a work of art and analyzes how they interact with each other to create a coherent whole. It focuses on the inner perfection and formal beauty of a work of art, and includes an attempt to remove the viewer’s subjective feelings from understanding the work. This approach leads to an appreciation of the aesthetic value of a work of art on its own merits when analyzing it. However, formalist criticism also has its limitations, as it can be overly focused on form and overlook the content depth or emotional response of a work.
Impressionist criticism is skeptical of all analytical criticism, believing that art cannot be judged by any rules or objective data. In the words of the critic France, “A good critic relates the great works to the adventures of his own soul.” Impressionist criticism allows the critic to criticize with autonomy and creativity, regardless of the views of other prominent critics, and with the freedom to think and feel as he or she sees fit. In other words, the impressionist critic interprets and judges a work of art with unlimited imagination and free will, without having to consider the artist’s intentions or other external factors.
Understanding the different approaches to criticizing a work of art is an important aspect of art appreciation. Each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses and can be applied in different ways depending on the situation. Rather than having a single, fixed view of a work of art, the viewer should utilize a combination of criticism methods to understand and appreciate the work from multiple perspectives. In the end, it’s important to remember that art criticism is not just about determining the superiority of a work of art, but about discovering its broader meaning and value and exploring its various aspects in depth.
In this way, a work of art becomes more than just an object to be appreciated, but an important medium for deep communication with the viewer. This approach will enrich the viewer’s understanding of the work of art and help them discover its true meaning and value.
