Schnack 1

Isabella Schnack

Prof. Hariskov

PHI301

July 19, 2019

The Schnack Art Evaluation Theory

Evaluating art pieces can be a very difficult task. There several factors that determine the true

value of a piece and those very whether the type of piece it is. The first thing to know about

evaluating art is that there is not a one-size-fits-all evaluation theory that will make the task any

easier. This job is completely subjective, since there is no quantifiable way to analyze the value of

a piece. Our theory will be developed around Monroe Beardsley´s own theory of evaluating art

and we will expand upon it.

Monroe Beardsley had an approach that opposed emotions and used deductive reasoning to

evaluate art. His theory of art evaluation was divided in two parts: The General Criterion Standard

and the Instrumentalist Standard of Artistic Value. The first part defines that an aesthetically good

artwork has a degree of intensity, complexity, or unity in it (Valentine 65). The intensity can come

from appealing to our senses. The complexity comes from the fact that there is a perceivable

relationship between the different aspects or part of the work. Finally, the unity is what describes

if an artwork has a good relationship between its different parts or if it has a bad one. A very

important part of Beardsley´s theory is the concept of aesthetic goodness. It refers to the ability of

an artwork to create a valuable experience that is completely detached from other practical

experiences in our lives like the ones dealing with ethics, religion, or politics (Valentine 67). An
 Schnack 2

artwork must give the observer an experience that will make them feel in a certain way and that is

what a successful artwork should do; be immersive.

The second part of the theory, the instrumentalist Standard of Artistic Value argues that an artwork

has instrumental value only if creates an intense, complex, and unified experience for the perceiver

(Valentine 69). I can agree with him that the experience that an artwork should create should have

all of these aspects and be different to any other kind of experienced lived by the appreciating

person. Although, there are many factors that he does not include in his theory that I consider to

be of great importance when analyzing artworks.

Meanwhile, Beardsley does not believe that there is space for subjectivism in art evaluation, I do.

As he argues that artworks should give perceivers an experience, there is some kind of subjectivism

in what he speaks. You cannot have an experience where your emotions are not being captivated.

Another factor that I take into consideration, that Beardsley did not, is creativity. If an artwork is

completely different from any other one because of the creativity of the artists, it will make it

unique. Uniqueness is a characteristic that I believe that could only elevate furthermore the value

of things, in this case of the artwork.

I believe not many people will give lots of importance to this last factor, but I think that it deserves

some degree of importance. The artists story behind each artwork can contribute massively to its

value. To me, each piece has a story behind it and that increases the value of piece. Beyond that,

the ability of an art piece to make the perceivers create or recall a story of themselves can give

even more value to it. Beardsley´s theory is solid to some degree, but my theory takes that solidness

and complements it with other factors that I believe that matter to the perceivers. The most

important factor to evaluate can be put into one simple word: experience.