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? Give reasons for your answer. v.2

The particular feature of identifying something is called quality. Every product, from food items to art and artifice has It's nature, and it is highly unique. The specific feature attracts the people most, but there is the possibility of changing the attribute. A lot of products, around the world, are produced each year. Every material has Its salient feature, and has a specific demand. In past centuries, the jury board judged the products according to their nature, and marked them. For example, the craft of Joynul Abedin had a high character, and both of spectator and jury judged them by their higher nature. Besides, the high trait products make a new area in the mind of viewers. People have thirst to see them again and again, and they go to the gallery whenever they have time. Over the past centuries, the situation, however, has changed. The exhibition system has become commercialized, and the artisan, perform to achieve fame and prize. Additionally, there are a lot of experts around the world, but there is lacking in aspect. Often, the painter has a personal face value, and give importance to the artisan, not to the work. For instance, a political person of India, created an art, which was sold at 1 crore rupees. The work, nonetheless, was not so attractive. In conclusion, it can be said that, the professional works, once, evaluated on the basis of character. The situation, at the present time, has changed, and normal work often labelled as a unique one and gets a big publication. This is because of commercialization, which, sometimes, make hopeless of some enthusiastic artisan.