My favorite art criticism is simply 'wow'.

Any art with a great sense of style, character and accuracy gets my vote every time.

Drape that over a compelling idea and you’ve really got a winner.

I prefer naturalism, but not for its own sake. For me it has to be done well.

The good stuff in any genre is always harder to find (but easy to spot when you find it).

Since I have a great respect for craftsmanship in the arts I am more drawn to work that is stylishly and expertly executed, with great character and flair, and with naturalism as its starting point.

The work can have departed quite wildly in the final incarnation, but I like it better when the initial impulse to create it was inspired by a natural emotion or something else in nature I can relate to.

I usually prefer that to visual work which is attempting to communicate some intellectual notion or mental concept.

For the most part I think words are better at doing that.

Like philosophy for instance.

Which might explain why a critic’s interpretation of some art seems more important than the art itself. When the words speak, but the art doesn’t. And art that says nothing gives the critic more freedom to say what’s on his mind.

A worthy idea for a piece of art could be as simple as communicating an animal or person's character or personality. Of course it could be a good deal more complicated too.

I love it when a piece of art stops me in my tracks with a sense of awe and wonder.

When it seems obvious the artist was inspired, but also skillful enough to pull it off.

That's why my favorite art criticism is simply ‘wow’.