Critical Thinking Applied to the Arts

Art history itself is distinguished from art criticism, which is concerned with establishing a relative artistic value upon individual works with respect to others of comparable style of critical thinking. As Paul and Elder (2005), "Critical Thinking Applied to the Arts" mentioned that art criticism plays a prominent role in art, I abet this message that high achievement in art is not considered to be existed if it cannot be identified or defined. As unofficially declared art history major, I am engulfed with experiences of art history practices and I say I agree that an art, without being criticized, becomes a hidden object of prodigious talent that will never be shown to our eyes, only known to local people. Everybody can be a critic, not limited only to advanced members of society or people with higher ranks.

Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s writings were considered to be the birth of art criticism. He first argued to a painting of Vasari that the real emphasis in the study of art should be the views of the learned beholder and not the unique viewpoint of the charismatic artist. He justified his words to the point why Vasari’s cult personality was illogical. Wincklemann’s original method of criticizing perfectly matches the line in Paul and Elder (2005), “Thus, if we believe that there is such a thing as great art, we had better to be prepared to justify our claims with words to the point.” That moves me to say that I highly disagree with one message in the book which says that every art must be assessed in accordance with the intellectual standards that apply to all reasoning. I ask you what about Jackson Pollock’s famous painting, Number 1? Does it have any intellectual standards? It broke rules of art standards, thus, creating a new art movement, abstract expressionism. It is still considered to be sui generis because of its originality and the artist’s emotions to the painting, without a question, are still puzzled to art experts today. Even though it is sui generis, in Latin for its own unique kind, it can still be criticized by the members of society. Without being criticized, an art could seek its own loss to existence. That all sums up to my logical response: every art have its own characteristics, identity, history, and purposes, and most important, beauty, but without a critique based on it, it wouldn’t be placed on a high profile among other famed artists. Artists’ fame depends on the works of people of society, sometimes absurd, but significant.

Sources for Johann Joachim Winckelmann: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33873013_ITM