Print Email A critique is an endeavour to comprehend an artwork and understand the intent of the artist.
Posted on March 15, by jamie Does the thought of an impending art critique bring tears to your eyes?
Does it make you feel like crying in your Wheaties? But with a little practice, you too can sound edu-ma-cated in front of others! Sure, no one will be the wiser… But if you really want to be intelligent, follow the darned steps already!
Description Just as it says, first you describe the facts, including the name of the work, artist, medium, etc. Next, what does the art look like, what is it made of, what objects do you see in it? What textures, shapes, critical writing art reviews painting colors are there?
Are the colors vivid and bright, or subdued? Remember, all of these are straight facts, with no opinions added yet. Be very general at first, then get more specific later on.
The first step goes something like this: In this painting, I see butterflies obvious, but necessary. There are two of them, and they are in flight with their wings open.
I also see what appears to be the side of a cliff, or a flat wall that has been broken off. It is daytime because the sky is blue, but there is also another drastic light-source coming from the right side, creating harsh shadows.
The landscape appears to be outdoors, because of the sky and because of the vast desert in the distance. The colors are very intense, especially the blue and the orange. There is a strong contrast between light and dark, and overall, the lines are very defined.
The viewer is either very close in proximity to the butterflies, or the butterflies are rather large. As the viewer, we appear to be standing in front of this scene, looking straight at it, and the overall effect is realism. Analysis Next, tell how all the answers from the description you just made are related to each other, ie, how the above facts are organized, compliment one another, or create harmony or distress.
This step can often be the most confusing, because it is very similar to the first and can easily overlap. So put on your detail goggles and dive in… As I view this piece, my eyes are occasionally led over to the vanishing point on the left in the distancebut keep coming back to the focal point around the butterflies.
This movement happens largely because of the shadow that the rock casts in that direction. The blue of the sky and the orange of the rock are very intense and bright highly saturatedand their opposition with each other also contributes to the back and forth motion of our eyes as we view the painting.
Also, because the butterflies appear to be abnormally large in comparison to what we assume is a rock face or cliffwe do not have a concrete sense of scale or proportion.
Who can be sure? The bottom-most butterfly shadow as well as the butterflies themselves, and the shadow cast by the rock has a sort of glow around it caused by the lighter orange color surrounding it. Interpretation Basically, how does the painting make you feel? What does it make you think of?
That comes in the next step! What do you think the artist is trying to communicate to you as a viewer? Not to mention their somewhat unrealistic shadows and highlights. So this is what I think Dali probably did: I think he found some recently dead butterflies and wanted to paint them, like one would paint a still-life with fruit or flowers or something.
That way, as a viewer, we could have the sense that these creatures are alive and kicking, in their own little colorful world. To me, I think this is a great concept, and a creative way of approaching a painting and making it more intriguing than a plain old still-life.
Of course, I have no idea if this is really what Dali intended people to feel when they viewed his painting. Also, do you feel it is original or not original? Would you hang it on your wall at home?
In general, I think this is an interesting and unique artwork.Reviews are an important way of creating active critical discussion, and also of building tomorrow’s art history.
Basically, any given art review has two immediate purposes: 1) to tell readers who haven’t seen the exhibition a little about it so they can consider going, and 2) to document and critique the activities of a city’s art world. experience of works of art, or both. Writing a review requires analytic skill, but a review is not identi- of "Rothko: The Last Works," however, probably briefly puts the paint- ings into the context of Rothko's earlier work and then concentrates on Robert Hughes in a review (in Nothing If Not Critical, page ) of David Smith's.
Oct 01, · You may have to write an art exhibition review for your job as a writer, or for a school assignment. Reflecting on and writing about art can be a creative experience, and reviews are very important for spreading awareness about new exhibitions and giving artists feelthefish.com: K.
Careful viewing is a prerequisite to writing a review.
Experience shows that uncritical viewing usually results in a poor review. This means getting a sense of the "big picture" as it were in relation to individual pieces.
So, it is a good idea to begin visit the gallery with the intention of reviewing selected/representative works. A Short Guide to Writing About Art, 8th ed.
Sylvan Barnet © by Sylvan Barnet. WRITING A REVIEW If you read reviews of art in Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The New Criterion, The Nation, and The New Republic, or a newspaper, you instance, Robert Hughes in a review (in Nothing If Not Critical, page ) of David Smith's sculpture.
The Art of Critical Writing and Reviewing explains the relevance of art criticism and details on how to review and criticise genres of literature, text across disciplines and other communication expressions such as music,newspapers,magazines,journals, dance, painting, sculptures, audio, video contents, radio and television programmes, internet .