Criteria for assessing the quality of art works
 

I have long wanted to ask a question of professional art critics. I apologize if it is someone else find it strange or not the elections be it said, offended.

So, there is a picture. Let it be notorious canvas, oil.
By what criteria should be evaluated to understand that we face - a masterpiece or not? And whether they do, these criteria?
I do not mean "polutehnicheskie" moments: basics of composition, ownership patterns - they even know bildredaktory like me. Especially since that picture, "cobbled together" by all the rules, rarely striking.

I understand that my question is so-so, weird. But let me - Dear forum users are very often the same product is evaluated as opposed to a work of art. And if it was only about herstovyh sharks!
I will not really recall how concerned professionals to Cezanne.

I am a mathematician by training, I can easily understand when they say - like or not like it resonates or not. I understand and statistical evaluation (though time passes and they can change the other way around). But in the current life, I see otherwise. About a respected artist friend of mine and a very educated respected art critic said - genius (with eyes rolled up slightly). Second, no less respected and well-educated, speaks - carrion (verbatim quote).
In short, he wrote a lot, but the idea is still not clearly expressed. But better that than nothing. Still, it comes as we sell the 'product'.

A real masterpiece, not often opponents.
Here in our ipogda someone to shederv snorts, yes, it happens , but it is , believe me, the problem is not a masterpiece, and snorting - he is trying to assert themselves, have this type of people.
 :D>

Added after 3 minutes
Do you want the formula to bring?

How to Soller?

I believed I harmony with algebra. (c) :D>

A good phrase.
But somehow not fully confirmed by the statistics forum.

As for the formula - I would like to :)>

If the " forum statistics " glances , you now find discussion of a universally accepted masterpiece - certainly the undisputed among critics, obvious to a global audience and look at those who criticize him here .

In connection with the exhibition Shibanova had much to say to visitors on this topic ...

They say that properly formulated question often contains the answer. In your question , I see two of them: the question about the "quality" and the criteria for evaluation and followed by the question "what is a masterpiece" and what are its criteria? That is, I would like to know - what do you wonders .

Cyril Syzran, with the standard masterpiece just everything is easier. There 're a good psychological experience, when the black they say 19 front - white. Twentieth century, nepodstavnoy also usually says - white.
But when the masterpiece was not accepted , that said about him ? A masterpiece , it was the same.

Yes, such a formula can be derived , actually.
I even heard a couple of times required to transfer the parameters of a masterpiece .
But to be honest, have somehow forgotten as useless and these parameters, although there are not many and they were not "long brood ," not " train of cranes ." :)>

Added after 1 minutes
To me someone else's opinion is not valid.
I nasmotrennost good, I believe my eyes.

artcol, with interest to hear your opinion on both the issues raised.

Added after 1 minutes
Cyril Syzran, I wonder why - no longer needed?
Is there are situations where the structuring of knowledge is produced uselessness?

Comrade Joseph, the main rule of art - a violation of established rules.


But not every narushalovo becomes an art.

There is an art narushalova rules, bestowed only geniuses that create outstanding works.

Guriev, Igor, really well said.
But little information.
My question is: why the two standard-educated art historian evaluate the same opposite the famous artist?