I’m stuck on a History question and need an explanation.
Your assignment is to write a review of an exhibition.
The review should be two to three pages long, double spaced.
The first paragraph or two should provide a broad introduction to the exhibition. Briefly inform the reader of the subject- the artists displayed, the time period and subject matter covered. You should assume the reader is a non-specialist- think of this as a paper that might appear in a newspaper. This is your chance to write as an art critic: as such your personal opinion is involved, but be aware that criticism demands that you analyze the works and defend your responses with solid evidence.
The review should include:
A description tells the reader what something looks like: A description in a review tells us how big the exhibition is, how the works are displayed (for example are the pieces crowded together or displayed with plenty of space, brightly lit or in dim light), and it tells us what some of the works look like. (You need not review every piece in the show). Consider the installation, are there explanatory text panels- if so what do they contribute. Provide any necessary background information about the artists here.
An analysis tells readers how some aspects of the exhibition work, how they interact (so if there are several artists- are they arranged by artist- do the works share themes or “speak” to others in the show), and what all parts of the exhibition add up to. You may choose to pick out a few works that you consider particularly strong or interesting. You might also examine any weaknesses.
An evaluation tells readers whether the exhibition was worth doing, how well it has been done, and whether it is worth seeing-and of course these judgments must be supported with evidence.