Criterion

How to judge the quality of art ?

Aesthetics from now?

For some art curators from well known art institutions, concept and originality seems to be often enough reasons to appreciate some artworks.

For some artists, emotions and technic pay admiration.

From people around, some spontaneity, emotions and technic seems to suffice.

But depending on the culture and history, the range of spontaneity to precision are "more" or "less" valued. Perhaps Easter countries are rather conservative and appreciate precision more than free lines, Western countries has got minutious painters, but the spontaneous brush strokes appearance has got more flair. A matter of taste?

This is the Rembrandt's year in the Netherlands.

I hear how much he was genial, but not every critics were positive in his time.

Opinion influencers, coming from museums, galeries, news, provide which art has got status.

But not always succeed to be inviting enough to the museums or galeries.

How is it going later to be seen in the history, the reflection about the present artworks stream?

Why some contemporary* artworks are exhibited in prestigious museums... question of taste? knowledge? (what kind?) commercial issues? identification to our present values?

Many children find museums very boring... difficult to get them to go there...

I have got a year "museum card", but I admit, lately there is little that I would like to go to see... sometimes I think to stop it's submission.

I find it sad to think so... wish there was more interesting artworks being exhibited.

Personally, I would love to see Tony Cragg work, more Anish Kapoor, Richard Deacon, a genuine worked art, alive from itself.

To see less rational, conceptual art depending on the labels description to be understood, or a kind of lazy artwork that just replace existent objects and display it into a gallery, or sexuality and violence art themas brutally used to appeal and to shock. This all have be seen lately repeatedly, ufff. I long to see more than art rigid framed in conceptual, spontane or innovative qualities, where I do not need to use a super glass and decode it what it means; art that reaches us without too many manipulative doorways.

I would love to see art made with perhaps a combination of precision and spontaneity, idea and fantasy, sensibility and inspirational, with "something extra", a communicative flow in between viewer and art, perceptions been awaken, life connection, awareness, other ingredients... enough to get a little life "spark" from it, not only a big thought of it.

In a time when to recognize "where art is" evoke so much confusion, because of the tendency of what is been exhibited in big art events, museums and art institutions; reflection, questioning about "what art is" cannot be ignored. Garbage or anything can become art if well displayed in a white hall with a good, supportive story behind (?).

The opposite, when a sensitive artwork is displayed next to many other works can shadow it all, instead of value each work, the total impression can be chaotic.

In the Stedelijk Museum, in Amsterdam, they invested a lot to build in the basement, iron walls for the museum collection exhibition, there are many impressive artworks close to each other, distributed in order of date, in between this iron walls, that would not make much difference if they were made from cheaper material. It was disappointing...

What was the criteria for such choices?

Maybe if I understood it, would I see it differently? I doubt... concept only does not work alone. Everything depends on how we see and experience it... but eyes capture images not only via a rational channel, but also via other senses.

To differ from the apathetic aftertaste art exhibitions, NDSM Fuse space is busy to succeed with another kind of exhibitions than from the "art menu" of the museums and galeries I have seen often lately.

To show a wider fan of art styles independent of the status quo of presented art.

The challenge is to "fish" in this sea what there is and to give a show to all.

To make space for to let them be valued perhaps, to be seen, an inviting open entrance to everyone, to experience all kind of styles of contemporary* artworks. To feel it, to discuss it. To see variety and to taste it. To feed our inner self, or to vomit out, to grow and to go forward.

Art is a way to process what there was, there is and to proceed what to be.

Constructive criticism will always be for to learn a better judgement. But not specifically for to find a definition of art, rather for to find a sensitive communication through it.

Time to sharp our criteria, priorities and values.

(*contemporary art, ..."the fictive relational unity of the historical present"... Peter Osborne)