Categories
- Art (166)
- Other (1,479)
- Philosophy (1,245)
- Psychology (1,729)
- Society (460)
Recent Questions
- How did Apollonius of Tyana really die?
- How did you react when you first realized the inevitability of your own death?
- How do I find myself? What to do if you lose the threads that connect you to yourself?
- Can you sell your soul to the devil for friendship with Satan?
- What should be done to make the world a better place?
If I drew a picture, I created it, the objective fact of creativity is obvious. It was present before the Impressionists and remained after.
If the conditional Kolya said that he (does not) like the picture, the subjectivity of his assessment is obvious. It was present before the Impressionists and will remain after.
Art critics don't evaluate whether they like a painting. I'm sure it was the same before the Impressionists. Art historians study art as such and its individual instances. How it is written, when, by whom, under what circumstances, why, what is depicted on it, to whom the author inherits, who inherits it. If art criticism was limited to the personal opinion of art critics, it would not exist.
I advise you to read the book “Why you can't teach art. Handbook for Art Students” by James Elkins, in which he shares his experience as a teacher.
Spoiler alert: no and you can't.