Art criticism is about discussing and evaluating visual art, helping us understand its meaning and value, even though opinions can change over time.

Key idea: Art criticism divides into different approaches, like historical criticism for past art and contemporary criticism for current art, each using different ways to understand and judge.

Because there are so many different styles and movements in art, art criticism has also split into different ways of looking at things. For example, there is a big difference between looking at art from the past and art being made right now. When critics look at old art, they often act like historians, studying the time period and how the art fits into its historical context. This is called historical criticism. They might ask, "What was happening in the world when this was made?" or "How did this artist influence others?"

On the other hand, when critics look at art by artists who are alive today, it is called contemporary criticism. This is often more about immediate reactions and trying to understand new ideas as they emerge. It is a bit like trying to predict which new band will become famous versus studying the history of rock and roll. The tools and questions they use can be quite different.

Key idea: Critics' opinions can be drastically reevaluated over time, with many once dismissed artists now celebrated, showing how art appreciation evolves.

It might seem like being an art critic is a safe job compared to being an artist, who puts their work out there for everyone to judge. But critics also face a big challenge: their opinions can be proven wrong by history. Many critics from the past are now laughed at for dismissing artists who are now celebrated. For instance, when the Impressionists first showed their paintings, many critics hated them, calling them unfinished or messy. Today, Impressionist paintings are among the most loved and valuable in the world.

Sometimes, even the names of art movements were first used by critics as insults. "Impressionism" and "Cubism" were originally meant to be negative terms. But the artists liked them and adopted them as a badge of honor, and now the original negative meaning is mostly forgotten. This shows how much opinions can shift over time.

Artists and critics often have a complicated relationship. Artists usually need good reviews from critics to get their work seen and sold. But sometimes, an artist's work is so ahead of its time that only future generations truly understand and appreciate it. It is a bit like a chef creating a dish that is too unusual for today's tastes, but becomes a classic years later.

Key idea: Art criticism involves both describing an artwork and evaluating it, with critics using either immediate impressions or a more systematic approach based on art theory and context.

So, how do critics actually do their job? There is no single rulebook, because art itself is so varied. One important part is describing the art piece in words. A critic needs to paint a picture with language so that readers can imagine what the art looks like and understand its key features. This is the descriptive aspect.

After describing, or even mixed in with it, comes the evaluation. This part depends a lot on the critic's own experiences and knowledge, as well as the art itself. Some critics might just share their immediate feelings or impressions. They might say, "This painting makes me feel joyful," or "The colors here are unsettling."

Others take a more structured approach. They might use their knowledge of art history, different art theories, or even the artist's background to understand the artist's intentions and the artwork's deeper meaning. They might ask, "How does this piece use light and shadow?" or "What social message is the artist trying to convey?" It is like the difference between saying "This movie was fun" and writing a detailed film review that analyzes the acting, directing, and themes.

“The evaluation of a work of art depends as much on the artist's output as on the experience of the critic.”

Key idea: While discussions about art are ancient, art criticism as a formal genre of writing developed in the 18th century with public exhibitions and the rise of dedicated writers.

People have probably been talking about and judging art for as long as art has existed. We can find early forms of art criticism in writings from ancient thinkers like Plato. Even wealthy art collectors, especially since the Renaissance, hired experts to help them choose and buy art. These experts were early versions of art critics, guiding patrons on what to commission or purchase.

However, art criticism as a specific type of writing, like what we see today in newspapers or magazines, really started to take shape in the 1700s. An English painter named Jonathan Richardson used the term "art criticism" in 1719. He even tried to create a system to objectively score artworks based on things like drawing and color. This idea caught on, especially as more people, particularly the growing middle class, started buying art and wanted to know what was "good."

In France and England during the mid 1700s, public art shows became popular. Writers started to gain fame for their comments on these exhibitions. Denis Diderot, a French writer, was particularly important. His writings about the art shows were some of the first real attempts to describe art in words in a detailed and insightful way. He helped make art criticism a recognized form of commentary, responding to the public's growing interest in art.

“Diderot's 'The Salon of 1765' was one of the first real attempts to capture art in words.”

Key idea: The 19th century saw art criticism become a profession, marked by debates between traditional and new art styles, and shaped by influential figures like Ruskin and Baudelaire.

By the 1800s, being an art critic became a more common job. In France, there was a big debate between those who liked the traditional, classical art styles and those who preferred the new, emotional Romantic art. Critics like Étienne Jean Delécluze defended the old ways, focusing on perfect form. But others, like Stendhal, argued that the old styles were too rigid and lacked feeling, championing the expressive nature of Romantic art.

One very important critic in England was John Ruskin. He wrote extensively about art, believing it could improve people's minds and spirits. He is famous for his incredibly detailed analysis of art, trying to understand how artists saw the world. His work, like "Modern Painters," was a huge effort to scientifically analyze art. He also became well known for his beautiful writing style.

Another major figure was the French poet Charles Baudelaire. He was known for his bold opinions and supported artists like Eugène Delacroix. When Édouard Manet's painting "Olympia" caused a scandal because of its realistic portrayal of a nude woman, Baudelaire privately supported his friend. He believed criticism should be passionate and look at art from a fresh perspective, helping people see the epic qualities in everyday modern life.

However, not all critical views were positive. In 1877, John Ruskin famously attacked James McNeill Whistler's painting, saying Whistler was asking too much money for "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." This led to a lawsuit, showing how heated the world of art criticism could become.

Key idea: The early 20th century saw a shift towards abstraction and formalism in art criticism, emphasizing 'significant form' and 'aesthetic emotion' over realistic subject matter.

As the 1900s began, a new idea started to gain ground: that art did not need to show specific, recognizable things. This was a move towards abstraction. People like Oscar Wilde in England championed this idea. Later, members of the Bloomsbury Group, such as Roger Fry and Clive Bell, developed this into a clear philosophy.

Roger Fry was an art historian who became fascinated with new modern art. He organized an exhibition in 1910 that featured what he called "post Impressionist" art, which caused a lot of controversy. He argued that art was trying to find a language of pure imagination, rather than just realistically copying the world. His ideas were very influential, especially among forward thinking people.

Around the same time, Clive Bell wrote in his 1914 book "Art" that all art has a special "significant form," and that the actual subject matter of the art was not as important. This idea formed the basis of the formalist approach to art, which focuses on the elements of art itself, like lines, shapes, and colors, rather than what the art represents. Fry later agreed, saying it did not matter if he painted a Christ or a saucepan, because it was the form that interested him. He believed that art's value came from its ability to create a unique feeling in the viewer, which he called "aesthetic emotion," caused by this significant form.

Key idea: Post 1945, New York became a hub for art criticism, with influential critics like Clement Greenberg championing movements like Abstract Expressionism, and new approaches like Feminist art criticism emerging.

After 1945, the role of poet as critic reappeared, with figures like the French poet Apollinaire championing Cubism. Later, André Malraux, a French writer, wrote extensively about art, even beyond Europe. He initially thought Mexican Muralism was the cutting edge, but changed his mind after visiting Argentina and seeing new artistic movements there.

In the 1940s, New York City became a major center for new art. There were not many galleries or critics initially willing to support the new American artists. However, some artists themselves, like Robert Motherwell and Barnett Newman, also acted as critics, writing about art.

By the late 1940s, many of the artists we know today, like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko, had strong supporters among critics. Clement Greenberg, a prominent critic, strongly advocated for Abstract Expressionism, seeing artists like Jackson Pollock as the peak of artistic achievement. He believed Pollock's work was the purest form of painting, focusing on marks on a flat surface. Another critic, Harold Rosenberg, saw Pollock's work as an "event," a dramatic act of painting.

These critics often used their influence to promote their favorite artists, sometimes ignoring others. For example, when Mark Tobey won a major international prize in 1958, the leading New York art magazines barely mentioned it, focusing instead on their preferred artists. This shows how powerful critics could be in shaping the art world.

More recently, in the 1970s, Feminist art criticism emerged. This approach looked at how women were shown in art and also focused on art created by women, examining it from a feminist perspective.

Key idea: Modern art critics work across various media, including online platforms, and are part of a global community that continues to expand with digital communication.

Today, art critics work in many different places. You can find their writing in traditional newspapers and specialized art magazines, but also online, on TV, and on the radio. Many also teach at universities or work as art educators in museums. They often help put together exhibitions and write the catalogs that explain the art.

There is even an international organization for art critics, the International Association of Art Critics, which is connected to UNESCO. This shows how art criticism has become a recognized and global profession.

Since the early 2000s, the internet has opened up new avenues for art criticism. Many people now share their opinions about art on websites and blogs, and through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. This means that more voices than ever before are contributing to the discussion and evaluation of art, making the field even more diverse and accessible.