How I judge a work of art

Let’s first address the elephant in the room. I am not attempting to evaluate a work of art for investment purposes.

Instead, I am attempting to evaluate the qualities that make a work of art resonate with an individual. This is intended to be a general framework to evaluate art for its own sake. By systematically evaluating these seemingly intangible qualities, we can better understand why we like certain pieces, and why others do nothing for us. This list is not all-encompassing, and it is definitely not the same criteria that a collector looking to invest in art would use. There are many qualities I have left off, such as historical significance, that might make a piece of artwork very valuable. But that’s not the point.

When you “invest” in artwork, you are evaluating it based on what other people will think about that piece. You are expecting that artwork to become more desirable over time. More people will want to own it, and because of its scarcity, this will drive up the price. Perhaps you have a thesis as to why this will happen. I am not attempting to evaluate a piece of artwork based on what other people will think of it. I am only evaluating based on what I think, and on what makes a piece desirable to me for non-financial reasons.

Would you still want to own this piece of art if it never went up in value (and no one would ever be impressed by it)? If so, why?

Well, here’s why….

My criteria for judging a work of art

It needs to be ascetically pleasing. That is to say, you should want to look at it. Looking at it brings you pleasure. This is a very subjective measure, and arguably doesn’t apply to many pieces that hang in museums, but it is one that I would apply to anything that I would hang in my home (real or virtual). If you really like the art, this enough for you.
The work should draw you in. It is layered. You have to visually explore it. Different parts draw your eye in different ways. You find yourself staring at it for long periods of time without losing interest.
It causes you to think deeply. Perhaps about cultural or societal issues. Perhaps it simply causes you to question your own perspective. Often this is art that requires you to interact with it somehow.
It is personally meaningful. There is something about the work that connects deeply to something that is important to you. This could be symbolic and relate to your values. It could represent a milestone, or it could simply remind you of an event or experience in your life that was formative. Of all the criteria on this list, this is arguably the most individualized. Something that is deeply meaningful to you may seem utterly insignificant to others. It will likely not translate into future price appreciation, as the very quality that you find so desirable in the work may be completely nonexistent to everyone else. But assuming you are owning the art for its own sake, this is a very powerful reason to collect a piece.
It generates strong emotions within you. Maybe it’s a sense of calm…the work centers you in some way. Maybe it’s a feeling of innocence and nostalgia for your childhood. It could inspire you. Or perhaps have the effect of stripping away some of the artificial constraints you have placed on yourself, making you feel more creative. Maybe you can’t even identify the feelings, you just like the way it makes you feel. The feelings that a piece of art evokes could be good or bad. Personally, I would not want to own a piece of art that generated strong negative emotions within in me. Or at a minimum, I would not hang it somewhere I would see it often. But I can understand why others would feel differently about this. Some people like watching a sad movie because it jolts their lives into perspective.

If a piece of art does even one of these things for you, it’s worth owning. If it does two or more, you’ve got something special on your hands.

To be fair, I have not always followed these rules when collecting artwork. I have also FOMO’d into projects that I didn’t really like. Chalk it up to memetics I suppose. Sometimes this was because people I really respected were very excited about a project. In some cases the artwork actually grew on me as I learned more and began to appreciate it for different reasons. In other cases not so much.

The truth is, every collector says the same thing. You should buy artwork because you like the art, not as an investment. This way, if it doesn’t appreciate, you don’t regret your decision. But in reality I think very few collectors take this approach. Like most complex decisions, collecting art is not necessarily that black-and-white. I’m sure most collectors are somewhere in the middle. And why shouldn’t they be? If you can buy a piece of work that you like, and it appreciates significantly over time, well then you’ve got the best of both worlds.

This is a slippery slope however, and one that I have certainly fallen down. It is a very gradual process to move from “I really like this work, and it may appreciate over time” to “I kind of like this work, and I think it will appreciate over time.” Once you make that small concession, things can move downhill quickly. This is where the FOMO comes in, and we have to take a step back and remind ourselves why we want to own artwork in the first place. Refer to the list above.

While this list would change considerably for a collector whose primary motivation was financial gain, I would argue that on a base level the above criteria still apply. Again, a financial investor is hoping that an artist’s work becomes more desirable to others over time. Meeting the criteria above is what makes the artwork desirable in the first place. It is what makes the work resonate with people so that they want to own it. Only after someone (or some people) initially desire a certain artist’s work, can others mimic that desire and create FOMO. In that way, the characteristics on this list are foundational. When evaluating criteria that makes artwork desirable to others (i.e. for investment), these are built on top of the criteria that make artwork desirable to you (for non-investment reasons). A financial investor would begin with the same list, and simply layer on other criteria such as the popularity of the artist, any momentum around her work or the genre in particular, and numerous other factors that do not really apply to the underlying work of art, but that would certainly affect its price.

It’s worth noting that there are other standards for judgement that might apply within a specific genre of art, but are not broad enough to apply universally. In long form generative art for example, you might consider the novelty of the algorithm used. Diving into the code may give another level of appreciation for the work. While this may not be directly visible in the output, someone who writes code may see beauty in an elegant solution to a complex problem. Another example specific to generative art is the variability of the pieces. This is ultimately an evaluation of the collection as a whole, but one that ultimately drives additional value for each piece within the collection. Genre specific criteria (and generative art in particular) might be worth exploring in a subsequent blog post, but this analysis is intended for an individual piece, and intended to be applicable across genres.

Finally, there is one other characteristic that I am unsure whether or not to include on this list as foundational, but that definitely deserves a mention. I don’t know whether this quality makes art great. But it is difficult to achieve, and definitely makes art memorable and more broadly desirable. It is a quality that I refer to as “Universal Transcribability”. Works that are universally transcribable have an underlying theme that resonates on a deep human level, but the art is generic enough that we can ascribe our own story onto it. There is the feeling that it was created just for you. That the artist understands you somehow, or that you understand the artist. The work leaves just enough ambiguity that it can be interpreted a number of ways. As humans tend to do, we interpret it in the way that supports our own worldview or that reinforces our existing narrative.

This characteristic often makes works of art popular. The perceived message resonates with a majority of people (whether or not it was the message that the artist actually intended). But does this make a work of art great? Or would we expect the opposite from a great work of art? That the message is singular and clear, and perhaps not easily understood. The way that only someone with a sublime palette can tell the difference between a 97 and a 99 point wine?

I’m not sure where I stand on this question, but it certainly makes for interesting conversation. Especially over a bottle of 97 (or 99) point wine.