Art Critics Help Viewers Perceive, Interpret, and Judge Artworks.

i think this statement is true, but i dont think it applies to all artworks. i think it should only apply to artworks that were created by the artist with a clear purpose. when there is a clear purpose, people tend to narrow down their options, and keep their eyes focused on the goal. so, for example, the Impressionists always aim to capture the fleeting light in their paintings, so their artworks always show the difference in lighting during different times of the day, or even different times of the year. one such example is Monet's famous Haystacks series.


the left one is painting during sunset, and the right one is painting on a foggy morning.


the left one here is painted near the end of summer, and the right one is painted during winter.

so when the artwork has a purpose, it most likely will show in the artwork. and that's when the art critics, with their art education and all, would be able to scrutinize the artwork, and see things that normal people are unable to see. through the eyes of a normal person, maybe Monet's painting of haystacks over and over again would get boring over time because they dont understand is so interesting about painting the same object repeatedly. but through the eyes of art critics, they are able to identify the different elements in an artwork and hence, understand the artwork too. this would make artworks more interesting to them, and after knowing the true meaning behind the artwork, based on their personal views, they will also be able to decide whether they like that artwork or whether they dislike it.

somehow it feels like they are the spokesperson for art.. but that's just what i feel. because if there were nobody to introduce art to normal viewers, unless the artwork makes a deep impression, they wouldnt be intrigued to find out more about it or even develop an interest in art. art critics are there to provide their own point of view, and shed some light for these viewers. with more information, they can develop their own views of the artwork, and maybe even develop an interest in art.

for example, Cubism. initially, i didnt really like it. it is so abstract, so avant-garde, and was almost too abstract for my liking. i mean, just look at this:



it's just a brown background with some shading, and random lines. if i didnt know anything about Cubism and if i werent in AEP but i saw this painting, i would never have known that this painting is a guitarist that is broken down into geometric shapes by Pablo Picasso, and i probably would have lost interest in it.

thus, i think that art critics really help viewers form their own opinion of artworks, especially viewers with no art education or interest in art.

however, i think that there are limits to how much art critics can help a person perceive, interpret and judge an artwork. for abstract artworks, i dont think there's an absolutely "correct" way to interpret them, especially if they were made without a clear intention in mind. if the artist created a completely abstract artwork, or even Dadaists who created artworks by chance, how, then, are art critics supposed to interpret them "correctly" when the scope is so wide that anything may be considered?