[iosif]

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'.