Do we appreciate a work of art only for its historical value?

Tough question, is it not ?

Personally I needed to read this question twice and questioned my appreciation of work of art entirely. What kind of things I like when I see an art or what characteristics bonds me with an artwork ?

As someone who loves modern and contemporary art, I think the idea and the process of creating impresses me as a viewer. Although, this changes when I encounter a Renaissance or Medieval work of art.I do not criticize modern artworks in the same way; this could be due to differences in historical and social backgrounds, or something about the lines or figures.

I am sure as viewers, we have all noticed that human representation in the 16th and 17th centuries is vastly different from one another, or is it just me?

• Can we talk about evolution of art history ? - well, that’s another day’s discussion .

Before I have studied the Ancient Greek and Roman art my evaluation of architecture and art was merely admiration for the historical monuments. Even while I understood their significance and what they stood for, I didn't think of them as works of art. I think that the art I have seen since I was a youngster is distinct from what I have studied, and my appreciation for it grows as I gain more knowledge.

In conclusion, I would argue that we do not respect a piece of art solely because of its historical significance; rather, a variety of factors, including aesthetic values, spiritual and emotional responses, cultural influences, and—above all—personal ties, impact the appreciating process. Art, like the concept of beauty and aesthetics, is subjective, as we all know. The value is determined by the emotional connection we form with the artwork.