Value

Albert Oehlen
Brooklyn Zoo
1995
oil on canvas
Institut Valencià d'Art Modern

Olivier O. Olivier
Untitled
(commissioned for French Revolution Bicentennial)
1989
lithograph
Cabinet d'Arts Graphiques
des Musées d'Art et d'Histoire, Genève

Harm Kamerlingh Onnes
The First Concert
1939
oil on board
Museum de Fundatie, Zwolle, Netherlands

Isaac Oliver
Miniature Portrait of a Man
ca. 1605-1610
watercolor on vellum
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Gilles-Marie Oppenord
Design for Supraporte
1720
etching
Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Vienna

Emil Orlik
The Old Couple, or, The Chelsea Pensioner
1898
color woodblock print
Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Johann Friedrich Overbeck
Italia and Germania
1828
oil on canvas
Neue Pinakothek, Munich

William Orpen
Homage to Manet
ca. 1906
drawing
(study for painting)
Manchester Art Gallery

William Orpen
Homage to Manet
1909
oil on canvas
Manchester Art Gallery

Bernard van Orley
Before the Crucifixion
ca. 1530
oil on panel
Scottish National Gallery, Edinburgh

Hendrick ten Oever
Andromeda
1698
oil on canvas
Museum de Fundatie, Zwolle, Netherlands

Jacob Ochtervelt
The Slice of Lemon
ca. 1667
oil on panel
Alte Pinakothek, Munich

Fritz Oelschlägel
Neußer Zeitung
(newspaper)
ca. 1914
lithograph (poster)
Kunstbibliothek, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Matthias Oesterreich after Giovanni Battista Internari
Gentleman holding a Large Paintbrush
1749
etching
Herzog August Bibliothek, Wulfenbüttel

Thomas Ochsenbrunner
Roman Worthy - Adrianus
1494
hand-colored woodcut and letterpress
(book illustration)
Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna

Emil Orlik
The Weavers
(poster for the play by Gerhart Hauptmann)
1897
lithograph
Kunstbibliothek, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

The expression "critical appraisal of works of art" raises an interesting question.  If the history of art admits a scale of values, just as the history of literature or political history admits degrees of excellence or "greatness," how can we justify the fact that the methods here expounded do not seem to allow for a differentiation between first, second and third rate works of art?  Now a scale of values is partly a matter of personal reactions and partly a matter of tradition.  Both these standards, of which the second is the comparatively more objective one, have continually to be revised, and every investigation, however specialized, contributes to this process.  But just for this reason the art historian cannot make an a priori distinction between his approach to a "masterpiece" and his approach to a "mediocre" or "inferior" work of art – just as a student of classical literature cannot investigate the tragedies by Sophocles in any other manner than the tragedies of Seneca.  It is true that the methods of art history, qua methods, will prove as effective when applied to Dürer's Melencolia as when applied to an anonymous and rather unimportant woodcut.  But when a "masterpiece" is compared and connected with as many "less important" works of art as turn out, in the course of the investigation, to be comparable and connectable with it, the originality of it invention, the superiority of its composition and technique, and whatever other features make it "great," will automatically become evident – not in spite but because of the fact that the whole group of materials has been subjected to one and the same method of analysis and interpretation.  

As I have said before, no one can be blamed for enjoying works of art "naїvely" – for appraising and interpreting them according to his lights and not caring any further.  But the humanist will look with suspicion upon what might be called "appreciationism."  He who teaches innocent people to understand art without bothering about classical languages, boresome historical methods and dusty old documents, deprives naїveté of its charm without correcting its errors. 

– Erwin Panofsky, from The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline (1940)