Summary -Art criticism and education

Art criticism and education. Yuni Kwon-DM

An art criticism is more regarding to a work’s considerable aspect under the critical criteria. Comparing an art review that is a more about an objective description of a work without serious judgments, on the contrary, an art criticism is inclined to explore the a work by various ways of approach to what the work is. It is divided by three types of criticism, which are from a personal perspective and an artwork itself to a particular context.

First of all, diaristic criticism is approach to use biographical and personal impression in a formal way. It arose in 19c against officially artistic and intelligent academic critic, rebelling stereotypical doctrine. Emphasizing the subjectivity, “I” is the most absolute criterion to valuate a work. One’s own emotion, intuition and bodily sensation are the most important elements to criticize a work. These elements can make for viewers to deeply move inside of a physical object, not abiding on the surface of it. Diaristic criticism prefers a kind of sprit journey or mental experience throughout a work in personal way. However, its informality, gossip and specific observation according to personal interests bring a chief drawback of diaristic criticism. It loses much of disciplinary value to at least point out what is the core of a work to enjoy.

Second is formalist art criticism that contributes to discussions of modern art. The Critics such as Roger and Clement Greenberg insist that mostly within artwork, conception and form determine significance of a work. The form is a method that allows figuring out artist intention. Then the quality of work depends on how the expressive from is successfully translated from an artist’s vision, feeling and idea, examining from the surface and the appearance of a work to core identity of the work. The structure analysis about from needs to be reasonably relevant to artist’s personal perception in this formalist art criticism. Despite of its explicit way of criticism, formalism needs a contextual consideration than aesthetic value of artwork itself.

The contextual art criticism is associated with art history, sociology, psychoanalysis and so on. Interpretive perspective from these different disciplines is main structure of the contextual art criticism.
Throughout the art history criticism, a disposition of artwork is conveyed within tradition. In that context, it is determined how the work can have a meaning.
And, in the sense of psychoanalytical art criticism, the understanding of unconscious psychological motive of artist and the hidden symbolic import of their works is most important things. The reasonable evidence is discovered in artwork itself and gives credibility on the psychological interpretation.
And, the ideological art criticism deals in not only political issue but also religious, gender, class and race concern. A work is analyzed as reflection of sociopolitical attitude in the sense of the ideological art criticism.

In a conclusion, these all kinds of criticisms are the sorts of effort to illuminate art. To distill complexity of art, more open-minded pragmatic critics are infinitely extending still now.