• Journal of Science of Art and Design
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.222-238
• /
• 2000

The attempts to explain the criterion of art criticism can be divided into three directions. The first is that there is a universal criterion of criticism. The second is that criticism is a subjective impression of each critic. Therefore, there is no universal criterion beyond a subjective impression. The third is that denies both claims. It tries to and the objective criterion which is neither universal nor subjective. In this paper, I will see how John Dewey criticizes the first two theories and holds the third theory. Dewey's denial of the first theory can be seen in his view of the judical criticism. The judical criticism claims that art criticism can be made on the universal criterion, as judical decision can be made on the general rule supposed to be applicable to all cases. But Dewey claims that the judical criticism cannot explain what makes the artist the 'masters'. Defining art as an experience, Dewey claims that art is a process of doing and undergoing, and that art is essentially an interactive activity between men and his environment As environment changes, the experience of the environment also changes. So art should accept the possibility of new experience. But, since the judical criticism advocates of the universal criterion which cannot allow the changeability, Dewey denies it. On the other hand, Dewey's denial of the second theory can be seen in his view of the impressionist criticism. The impressionist criticism claims that criticism is to clarify the impression which is consisted of feeling and imagery the art object evokes. To this claim, Dewey replies that to clarify an impression is to analyze it, and analysis can proceed only by going beyond the impression to the judgement. As we have seen so far, Dewey has denied the judical criticism that there is a universal criterion supposed to be applicable to all criticism. He has also denied the impressionist criticism that there are only subjective responses to the art object, and hence that there is no criterion of criticism at all. For Dewey, these two criticism are based on the same false assumption of the criterion, although their conclusions are different from each other. Both the judical and impressionist criticism failed to realize the difference between the meaning of the criterion as applied in measurement and as used in criticism. Criticizing of these two views of criticism, Dewey claims that there is an objective criterion which is neither universal nor subjective. Art criticism is objective in tv#o senses, i. e., in the first sense that it can be judged by the properties of the art object and in the second sense that it can be verified by the communities of the critics.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.459-474
• /
• 2023

Contemporary fashion criticism tends to rely solely on the established art criticism process without consideration of the distinctive characteristics of fashion. Thus, this study aims to reveal the unique roles and characteristics of fashion criticism by recognizing it as an independent field in contemporary art with its own social significance. This study will first apply traditional art criticism models to analyze and explore contemporary fashion criticism's empirical content before uncovering the uniqueness of contemporary fashion criticism by content analysis. Contemporary fashion criticism discusses not just physical objects but various topics and ideas, as well. Accordingly, the existing criticism model was modified in this study to fit contemporary fashion criticism and organized into five stages: description of historical fashion, form description, external evaluation, interpretation, and internal evaluation. Commerciality, the human body, coordination, the critic's individuality, trends, and fashion-related persons were identified as key factors of contemporary fashion criticism's uniqueness. In conclusion, rather than build a single contemporary fashion model, this study found it more effective to create individual fashion criticism models suitable for detailed fields, as these enable the discussion of multifaceted topics in the fashion field. This study is expected to serve a meaningful guide for the fashion discourses.

• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.44 no.11
• /
• pp.35-42
• /
• 2006

A criticism model for dress was developed to offer a methodological insight into research on aesthetics of dress. Concepts from Edmund B. Feldman's art criticism model, James D. Carney's style-relative model of art criticism, and Sung Bok Kim's fashion criticism model were borrowed and integrated to create a criticism model for dress, comprising identification of styles, descriptive features, aesthetic value features, external interpretation, socio-cultural interpretation, and evaluation. Both inductive and deductive approaches for the identification of styles can be made in the process of dress criticism. In the former case, descriptive features and aesthetic features are sequentially identified to locate the styles of dress. In the latter case, styles are identified first, and descriptive features and aesthetic features are identified accordingly. Logical criticisms can be made based on the critics' background knowledge of the history of dress and art.

• Lingua Humanitatis
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.141-158
• /
• 2001

Criticism of today finds itself in an awkward situation, for it is now being transformed in the same way that literature and the arts were transformed by the avant-garde movements at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. It is characterized predominantly by a break with harmony and with the values of realism. As such, it is driven by a post-modem ethos, an artistic, social, and cultural phenomenon that veers toward open, fragmentary, and indeterminate forms. In this paper, I examine today's most urgent social and cultural issues with reference to artistic production and criticism, in order to illuminate the true nature of criticism. The outstanding questions in the world of art criticism are given in five categories: the lack of critical reality in argumentative criticism; the problem of artistic and literary production in global capitalism; the artistic mind and its consciousness of socio-historical ideology; anxiety of the rise of cyberjournalistic criticism; and the question of subordination to western systems in the field of interpretation and criticism. For my analysis, I have tried to formulate a three-dimensional critique structure that will help us organize the relationships between the points of argument: 1) criticism as a creative force behind the artist; 2) criticism as critique of artistic production; and 3) criticism as critique of other critics. This multi-layered structure will be appropriate to our task of interpretation and evaluation, as the proposed complex structure of criticism will be able to embrace the diverse aspects of our problematic argument. In the final analysis, my argument resolves itself into a question of art, more specifically into a question of criticism as a protective device of art in an age threatened by globalization and cultural monopolization.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.142
• /
• pp.295-321
• /
• 2017

This paper discusses Hegel's concept of Art criticism, focusing on the article "${\ddot{U}}ber$ die Bekehrten" in 16. Vol. of Hegel's Gesammelte Werke. Hegel is a theorist of the system of art, but also an art critic who actively participated in popular art practice. Until now, Hegel has been interpreted mainly as a theorist who usually constitutes the system of art. According to many interpretations, Hegel has been criticized for his theories frame interpretation of the Artwork compulsorily. But in this article we see another aspect of Hegel as an art critic. First, in this article Hegel shows as an art critic how romanticists distort the work with an emphasis on the theory. Hegel argues in his article written in early 1826 that romantic ironic theory does not help at all in understanding the "die Bekehrten" of Laupach. Whereas ironic theory emphasizes the contradiction between character and its action as the essential value of the work, Hegel interprets that the comic is at the center of the work, which lets the unessential sides of the unified character disappear, so that the unity of the character expresses itself. Hegel also interprets that the theory of irony represents the work of art for the scholars, which harms the objectivity of artwork and defends the artwork for the public. Second, Hegel began to apply the achievement of his criticism to his aesthetic lectures. Since 1826 Hegel has focused intensively on discussing two concepts, romantic irony and 'artwork for the public' in his aesthetics lectures. Thus, this article provides a basis for Hegel 's criticism of ironic theory after 1826 and the concept of artwork for the public. In this respect, we can confirm that Hegel has reinforced and extended his theories through his practice of criticism of concrete works of art rather than imposing systematic theories upon art criticism

• Korean Journal of Child Studies
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.187-204
• /
• 1999

The 20 five-year-old kindergarteners in the experimental group participated in 14 art criticism activities over an 8 week period. Analysis of the data by frequency, percentage, and t-test showed differences between the experimental and control groups. The experimental group improved in Visual Cue-Attendance and Evaluative Judgmental categories. Children in the experimental group also showed higher scores in organization of pictures and materials in their expressive art work. There were no differences between groups in sequence and contents of expression.

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.19 no.2 s.64
• /
• pp.139-150
• /
• 2006

The evaluation of art has been historically based on the thorough reliance on the subjectivity of beholders due to the fact that the production and appreciation of works of art is founded on the similar(subjective) value. There had been little attempt to reverse such tendency by creating an objective and quantitative checklist for evaluating a work of art. Centering on the evaluation of the Media Art, which increased dramatically in numbers since the late 1960s, this is an attempt in systematizing the quantitative evaluation of Media Art by reflecting the idea of subjective criticism as well as its medium specificity. As such, the criteria for the evaluation consist of media evaluation, work evaluation, appreciation evaluation, product evaluation and exhibition evaluation. The evaluators can be divided into the general public, the Media Art specialist and the curatorial staff, according to their experiences in dealing with the Media Art. Based on the result of the FGD, the weight has been added to the evaluation system according to each evaluation criteria to ensure the balance between the objective and subjective criticism.

• Korean Institute of Interior Design Journal
• /
• no.29
• /
• pp.112-119
• /
• 2001

In general, the definition of criticism is making a constructive analysis between good & evil, right & wrong, and beauty & ugliness. Just as the literature, art, music, and architecture welcomes productive criticism in order for further advancement in each professional field, constructive criticism in the field of interior architecture must be activated stance it would be as useful as in other fields to upgrade the level of design quality If the constructive criticism were to be taken properly in the benefit of further advancement in particular design, then the criticism must hale a proper criteria in order to examine and review the design work objectively However, as the design symbolizes cultural interpretation and reaction towards better creativity, we expect design to be mutated in many different directions. As the limit of Interior architecture shares limitless possibilities in today's society, it seems that we need to set up a guidelines of design criticism in order to support the further development of the area of interior architecture.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.437-455
• /
• 2016

This paper proposes a multi-disciplinary approach for fashion criticism in museology through an analysis of the 2014 Charles James's retrospective. It includes the following elicitations. First, it explores a critical discussion of "dress museology" as well as "fashion museology" and the complexity of fashion in museums. Second, this paper reorganizes Fleming's (1974) artifact study and Crane and Bovone's (2006) critical theory for fashion criticism in museology by comparing "object-based" research with an "academic" approach. Third, it applies fashion criticism methodology as a case study to the aforementioned museum fashion exhibit, entitled . We can subsequently begin to reconsider concepts of art and fashion within present culture based on inclusive fashion criticism of aesthetic and cultural events.

• Fashion & Textile Research Journal
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.66-78
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to illuminate the location of fashion in contemporary society and to suggest a direction for fashion criticism in aesthetic$\hat{u}$cultural perspective. For this, literature researches about some of art criticism and fashion criticism theories and cultural studies related to fashion are performed. In this study, fashion criticism is defined as a linguistic analysis and interpretation about a variety of discursive networks around fashion as well as an aesthetic analysis of it. Considering this definition, an analytical framework for the contemporary fashion criticism combines Feldman's and Carney's models with Crane & Bovone's and Entwistle's sociological studies for aesthetic and cultural perspectives. At first, its aesthetic perspective shows 'Description'-'Descriptive formative features', 'Analysis'-'Locate the style' and 'Aesthetic value', 'Interpretation'- 'Interpretation of the fashion object' and 'Socio-cultural interpretation', 'Judgment'-'Critical judgment'. Then, its cultural perspective especially emphasizes 'Socio-cultural interpretation' of the 6 steps above. Socio-cultural interpretation gets tangled with the network of various cultural agents within the fashion system, producers/designers, retailers/suppliers, media/editors, consumers/spectators, and so on. In the course of the fashion system 5 analytical methods about the fashion object can be suggested and they are as follows: Analyses of texts, discourses and symbols of a fashion object, Analyses of fashion systems which produces symbolic values, Analyses of the communication of symbolic values and the disseminating processes through the media, Analyses of the attribution of symbolic values to a fashion object by consumers, and Cross-national studies of symbolic values expressed in a fashion object.