To be labelled a ‘Work of Art’, a painting, sculpture or other art form should display certain qualities that are unique. However, over the past century there has been a decline in the quality of prize-winning artwork and it is now possible for quite ordinary pieces of art to be labelled ‘masterpieces ’ whilst true works of art pass unnoticed. Do you agree or disagree?

There are rules used as a basis to justify the worth of an artwork. In the past, many artists in history have been recognized for achieving these qualities; displaying exceptional masterpieces like Da Vinci, Picasso, Michaelangelo, and Van Gogh to name a few. But in recent times, there have been new forms of

art

and new artists have emerged shrouding the real pieces that were ought to be works-of-

art

which I greatly disagree. The rise of new artists and new forms of

art

does not mean the past

art

pieces are neglected. Since

this

generation consists of a new set of audience, the qualities sought in the past have changed. It all depends on the eye of these new judges that cause the new

art

form to be recognized along with the previous masterpieces. The notion of how new arts that are considered today as a masterpiece are seen by some as not suitable work-of-

art

is unacceptable.

This

is the modern era, the taste of people have changed. If these exact people lived in the past, the kind of

art

that artists present today will

also

be possibly recognized as a work-of-

art

in the past. So, it is wrong to say that

this

considered modern work-of-

art

is not a true masterpiece. In conclusion,

Therefore

, the past

art

pieces are not clouded by new artists’ pieces.

Instead

, it is still remembered in

art

museums and exhibits as the greatest arts of all time, inspiring new artists to create their own style and dominate the

art

industry by showcasing bold artworks.