Art is a component of culture and as much as the latter varies across societies, the understanding and interpretation of art can only vary significantly. Thus, to be able to successfully do so, there is a need to develop a fundamental understanding the motivations, forms, modes and elements of art to be able to fully interpret them rather than defining what art is. According to Barrett (1994), artworks naturally demand interpretation. To illustrate this idea, Barrett refers to the research developed by Nelson Goodman and Arthur Danto who both point out that art has to be viewed beyond its existential form or state to be able to develop relevance and consequence, suggesting a dynamic value-building relationship between the viewer and the art object. However Adams (1996) points out that this can be difficult since art is difficult define.

More, Carey (2006) believes that efforts to define art are likely to fail because the process of defining art itself is contrary to its nature. Thus, people do not have just different views or criteria for aesthetic and artistic value but also in how these evaluation systems are developed and defined. Varying levels of competence can also impact art interpretation during the Renaissance, art education was regarded very highly and there was a high degree of emphasis on formal and technical art skills. Thus, the most celebrate art works were of the time were works that were representative of these qualities, creating acclaim for artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo Buonarroti. However, despite this emphasis on the technical value of art, since they were often commissioned to impress, there was still an emphasis on their capacity to have an impact of its viewers. In conclusion, this implies that art value is culminates in the interpretations that are made about it.