Media:
Audience:
Communicative purposes:
Authors:
Size: rather short, concise (500-600 words)
Move pattern and discourse strategies:
Move I (WHO + WHEN + WHERE)
Move II (WHAT; developing a controlling idea about the exhibition)
1. Find an art review. Give its title. Do you consider it a positive or negative review overall? Why? Which are the positive aspects, and which are the negative ones? Do you have a clear image of that exhibition based on this art review? Do the interpretations given to the analyzed works help you understand the artist's themes?
2. Choose an exhibition you have recently seen and try to write your own art review of that exhibition.
- art magazines, newspapers of regional, national, international circulation
- journals devoted to different art forms
- radio + television broadcasts
- the Internet (including blogs)
Audience:
- the general public; educated, experienced readers, not necessarily art connoisseurs; people who are interested in art and possess some knowledge and/or intuition about art; people who expect to learn something new about art, or just see art from different perspectives
- the members of the artistic discourse community
- undecided people (as to whether to visit or not an exhibition)
- people who missed the exhibition, or are unable to visit it, because of its distant location or lack of time and who are counting on the intelligent writing of the art reviewer to get an idea about a specific art event
Communicative purposes:
- to inform the public about a current, or a just-concluded artistic event
- to promote an artist, an exhibition (gallery or museum, why not?)
- to offer the audience an evaluation of the show/exhibition (as personal, but expert opinion)
- to competently describe the most representative works
- to competently interpret the meanings of the works, by offering the necessary evidence to support interpretation (from within and outside the work; iconographic + iconological interpretations) -- the previous purposes are those of art critique
- to convince/persuade the public that the effort of visiting the exhibition is worthwhile, or, on the contrary -- similar to advertorials
- to persuade the readers to become art exhibition goers/expand the art public
- to educate oneself and the audience; develop artistic taste; fight against bad taste -- the last two purposes coincide with art education' purposes
Authors:
- art critics, art historians, professional writers, journalists, philosophers (aestheticians, art theorists), authors of TV and radio series and programs, bloggers, church people, etc.
- must have(s): enough experience to offer reliable evaluations; honesty; analytical, open mind; writing experience (offer that amount of information the audience needs; provide the right amount of scholarly insights without getting into too many boring details; maintain the reader's interest by varied rhetorical devices and discourse strategies); knowledge of the different (artistic) ideologies; knowledge of the art market.
Size: rather short, concise (500-600 words)
Move pattern and discourse strategies:
Move I (WHO + WHEN + WHERE)
- catching the reader's attention by using the appropriate rhetorical devices (e.g. a rhetorical question, a paradox, a figure of speech)
- offering specific information about the exhibition (when - the period; where - country, town, gallery, museum)
- offering some information about the artist(s) (a very short biography)
Move II (WHAT; developing a controlling idea about the exhibition)
- offering a general picture of the show and a first evaluation
- different discourse strategies:
- the historical approach of the works (chronological)
- an unpopular opinion
- an analogy
- what one expected vs. what one got
- a comparison (between works of the same artist, of different artists, between styles)
- the first impression (initial impact on the viewer)
- the strength/originality of the artist
- a question (either rhetorical or one that will be answered in the following move)
- ensuring the coherence of the text
- relating the previous information to the following
- analyzing artworks
- offering partial evaluations
- describing + interpreting +/- evaluating work 1
- describing + interpreting +/- evaluating work 2, a.s.o.
- partial evaluations of the works are made according to some aesthetic criteria (implicit or explicit)
- are usually positive, or holding some reservations; when the lack of value is quite obvious, evaluations are negative
- rhetorical strategies include: avoiding ambiguity and clearly stating the value (using qualifiers and quantifiers- e.g. overstatements -hyperboles), or, on the contrary, cultivating ambiguity for the sake of politeness (e.g. understatements - litotes = saying too little); irony and rarely sarcasm.
- offering a final, on-the-whole evaluation of the exhibition
- convincing the audience of the value of the show
- persuading the audience to visit the exhibition
- trying to predict the future development of an artist's work, based on the current show (speculating about future developments)
- implicitly persuading collectors to buy/or not some works
1. Find an art review. Give its title. Do you consider it a positive or negative review overall? Why? Which are the positive aspects, and which are the negative ones? Do you have a clear image of that exhibition based on this art review? Do the interpretations given to the analyzed works help you understand the artist's themes?
2. Choose an exhibition you have recently seen and try to write your own art review of that exhibition.
3. Watch the video. Are the pieces of advice offered there helpful? Had you thought about them before?
Hodiș Thomas-Design An 2
ReplyDeleteTask 1: Art Review Analysis
Title: Cézanne at Tate Modern review – a spectacular, once-in-a-lifetime show (by Adrian Searle for The Guardian).
Overall, I consider this a very positive review. The critic clearly loved the exhibition and considered it a rare event. The positive aspects are that he explains very well how the gallery is organized chronologically and how you can actually see Cézanne's painting style changing. The only slightly negative aspect he mentions is that looking at more than 80 intense paintings can be a bit exhausting for a regular visitor. Based on this review, I definitely got a clear image of the exhibition. The interpretations really helped me understand the artist's themes, especially when the critic explained how Cézanne played with perspective and basically opened the door for Cubism later on.
Task 2: My Art Review
Simplicity and Roots: The Brâncuși Exhibition
Have you ever wondered if a simple piece of stone can show real emotion? This is the question that came to my mind when I visited the Constantin Brâncuși: Romanian Sources and Universal Perspectives exhibition in Timișoara, at the National Museum of Art. The exhibition took place late last year and it was a huge deal because Brâncuși, our most famous sculptor, completely changed modern art in Paris.
Walking into the museum, my first impression was that the show was very calming and well organized. The controlling idea of the exhibition was to show how Brâncuși combined traditional Romanian folk art with very modern, abstract shapes. I really enjoyed this historical approach. It was fascinating to compare his famous, polished sculptures with the old wooden peasant objects and traditional clothes displayed right next to them. It made me realize that his originality didn't just come out of nowhere; it came from his roots.
Seeing these traditional objects first made it much easier to understand the actual artworks in the main rooms.
The artwork that stood out to me the most was The Kiss (1907). Unlike older sculptors who carved very realistic bodies with lots of details, Brâncuși just carved two blocky figures directly into a piece of stone. It looks a bit primitive, but it perfectly captures two people holding each other tightly. I evaluate this as one of his best works because it's so simple yet tells you exactly what it's about. Another great piece was the Măiastra, a shiny bronze bird. The way the gallery lights hit its surface makes it look like it's actually flying. Some people might find his bird sculptures a bit repetitive since he made so many versions of them over the years, but I think it just shows he was obsessed with finding the perfect, aerodynamic shape.
To conclude, the exhibition was a totally worthwhile experience. It offered a great overall evaluation of his career and proved that his art is still very relevant today. Even though the exhibition is over, I highly recommend checking out the official catalog. It really helps you educate your artistic taste and understand why Brâncuși is such a legend in the art world.
Task 3: Video Advice
I watched the video by Brainard Carey, and honestly, the advice he gives is very practical and makes a lot of sense. He suggests that instead of spamming critics with generic emails about your art show, you should make a short list of 6 local critics. Then, you write to them just to compliment a review they recently wrote, without even telling them you are an artist. After they reply and you start a friendly chat, you invite them to a short 10-minute Zoom tour of your show.
I hadn't thought about this approach before. I always assumed the only way to get a review was to send official press releases and hope for the best. Treating the critic like a regular person who also needs feedback, and building a relationship first, seems like a much smarter and natural strategy.
Dracea Luca-Vlad
ReplyDeleteAnul 2, Licenta
Foto-Video
Task 1,2,3
Title of the reviewed review:
"Beyond What You See. Photography"
Why? Deep, intellectual, introspective.
The exhibition is presented as "a major project", and the language used suggests appreciation and admiration for the conceptual and aesthetic value of a job well done.
It highlights the originality of the three artists, emphasizes the introspective and symbolic dimension; emphasizes the diversity of photographic techniques; explains the central themes: memory, time, spirituality.
Can photography reveal more than just visible reality? Collective exhibition.
Images from the opening of the exhibition "Beyond What You See". On the occasion of the official opening, Liviu Bulea and Oana-Maria Pop, the curators of the exhibition and the initiators of the project, as well as Ștefan Bădulescu, professor at the University of Arts and Design in Cluj-Napoca, spoke.
The event took place on 07/05/2026 at the Art Museum in Cluj-Napoca.
Hutter Doris-Maya – Anul II - DESIGN
ReplyDeleteTASK1:"Veronica Ryan review – the seeds are sensational but the detritus is distracting" written by Eddy Frankel for Time Out.
Total mixed bag, but leaning to a positive review. The critic, Eddy Frankel, is clearly obsessed with her technical craft and the way she handles heavy-duty materials like bronze and lead. But he’s also calling her out on the “trash-art” aesthetic that’s been done to death in every MFA program since the 90s. He’s basically saying the OG work is 10/10, but the newer “wrapped” stuff feels a bit like it’s trying too hard to be deep without the visual payoff. I can imagine the contrast between the two floors. Downstairs sounds like a cluttered, "pendulous" mess of tea bags, plastic bottles, and dangling sacks—very DIY, very "found object" aesthetic. Then you go upstairs, and it shifts to something much more tactile and "museum-y"—heavy bronzes, marble slabs, and metallic pillows. The review definitely helps. Once he explains that the bandages represent healing and the seeds represent migration, the work stops being just "organic shapes" and starts being a political statement.
TASK2: Art Review: “Povești din orașul pe hârtie” artist Roberta Gașpar
In her 2026 Expo Maraton debut, Roberta Gașpar transforms the Casa Matei Gallery into a glowing, recycled metropolis. Povești din orașul pe hârtie” uses cardboard and paper to deconstruct the contemporary urban experience, trading cold concrete for fragile, handcrafted textures.
The first visual impact is scenographic. The exhibition welcomes you into an atmosphere of semi-darkness—a "scenic moment" where the only visual landmarks are structures illuminated from within.
The entrance is metaphorically marked by a small book hanging from the ceiling by a thread. It serves as a manifesto of fragility; information is not served on a screen but must be "discovered" physically within the space.
High-rise blocks constructed from simple materials become living organisms through the addition of LEDs. The light streaming through manually cut windows does more than provide volume; it suggests a human presence in an otherwise inorganic space.
Gașpar’s technique bridges the gap between architecture and illustration. The use of fine liners to create graphic sketches—verging on caricature—gives the city a playful yet critical identity.
The Standout Element that she played with is the information brochures designed as local newspapers. This choice transforms the visitor from a mere observer into a citizen of the "Paper City," giving the artistic context a journalistic weight.
The anchor to reality is the video projection. In a corner arranged with chairs—an explicit invitation to contemplation—the artist loops fragments of daily life in Cluj-Napoca. The scene of pigeons being fed by an elderly man in the park acts as a "punctum." It is a banal moment, ignored by the hurried flow of the city, which, once extracted and projected in a gallery, becomes a symbol of residual humanity.
Roberta Gașpar’s exhibition is not just about paper models; it is about attention. It successfully triggers a necessary introspection: how many times do we pass through the "real city" without noticing the micro-details that make it livable?
Through the contrast between the darkness of the gallery and the warm light emanating from the models, Stories from the Paper City reminds us that the city is not built of concrete, but of the small, often unnoticed moments we leave behind.
TASK3: The advice is highly practical because it shifts the focus from self-promotion to professional relationship-building. Recognizing a critic’s writing as a craft in its own right is a sophisticated way to establish rapport. Furthermore, offering a brief, time-capped Zoom walkthrough is a strategic way to lower the barrier to entry, making it significantly easier for a critic to engage with your work regardless of the venue's prestige.