How do interpretative judgments differ from evaluative judgments in art criticism?

In the philosophy of art and aesthetics, philosophers distinguish between two primary modes of critical discussion: interpretative and evaluative judgments.1

Interpretative Judgments

Interpretative judgments focus on understanding and describing the work of art itself. This approach involves analyzing the object's formal features, expressive or representational content, and artistic genre. Modern criticism often emphasizes the study of the aesthetic object rather than the artist's hidden intentions, as critics seek to articulate the meaning they perceive within the work. This process is essential for grasping the "basic understanding" of unconventional or complex art, often helping to define its significance within art history.123

Evaluative Judgments

Evaluative judgments go beyond description to rank works according to their merit or quality. While interpretative judgments focus on what a work is, evaluative judgments address its value, often using terms of praise or condemnation (e.g., "profound," "sentimental," or "great"). These judgments are frequently grounded in the critic's subjective response, which they then attempt to justify by placing the work in relation to a canon of accepted works.1

Ultimately, while interpretation provides the necessary analysis of the object, evaluation seeks to establish its importance, often by comparing the quality of feeling expressed in the art to human character and moral experience.1