Later Today

it is my observation that not everyone who visit the Art Gallery has a full understanding of the meaning of the different art forms found in the Gallery. Therefore I request to produce an Art critique. When the public is aware of the meaning of the art works and the story behind the artist they will have an interest in buying and being part of the art. Then maybe we will like what we see, we would know "why it is art". The experts do not post exact rules, and the laymen is apt to fall back upon his final line of defense and say: "Well i don't know anything about art but I know what I like". It is a formidable roadblock, this stock
phrase, in the path of understanding between expert and layman.
The most fateful among the layman and the expect is the belief that there are, or ought to be , exact
rules by which we can tell art from what is not art, and that on the basis of these rules, we can then
grade any given work according to its merits. Deciding what is art and evaluating a work of art are
separate method for distinguishing art from non-art, this method would not necessarily enable us to
measure quality.
We do know, however, that opinions about works of art keep changing, not only today but throughout
the known course of history. Even the greatest classics have had their ups and downs, and the history of
art- is a continuous process of discarding established values and rediscovering neglected ones. It would
seem therefore, that absolute qualities in art elude us, that we cannot escape viewing works of art in
the context of time and circumstance, whether past or present. How indeed could it be otherwise, so
long as art is still being created all around us, opening our eyes almost daily to new experiences and thus
forcing us to adjust our sights? Perhaps, in the distant future, men will cease to produce works of art. It
is not inconceivable, after all that mankind may someday outgrow its need for art. When that happens,
the history of art will have come to an end and our descendants will then be in a better position to work
out an enduring scale of artistic values- if the problem still interest them. Until that time, we had better
admit that it is impossible to measure the merits of works of art as a scientist measures distances.
But if we must give up any hope of a trustworthy rating scale for artistic quality, can we not at least
expect to find a reliable, objective way to tell art from non- art? Unfortunately even this rather more
modest goal proves so difficult as to be almost beyond our powers. Defining art is about as troublesome
as defining a human being.
Let us test, for instance, the simple claim that a work of art must be made by man, rather than by
nature. This definition at least eliminates the confusion of treating as works of art phenomena such as
flower, sea shells, or sunsets. It is a far from sufficient definition, to be sure, since man make many
things other than works of art. Still it might serve as a starting point. Our difficulties begin as soon as we
ask “What do we mean by making?” If , in order to simplify our problem, we might say that a work of art
must be a tangible thing shaped by human hands.
Now let us look at the striking piece that I did.
By understanding its meaning, we would value the thoughts and time taken in assembling this work.
This is not simple a work for display. It’s an innovative book shelf. A lot can be constructed from this
work looking at the way the books are set up, hence there is a need to give a qualitative observation
analyses of the work through a write up, a sound record or
a video record that can be published in the Gallery website,
so that in 100 years to come the work remains relevant.