Based on their role as a viewer, a person’s interpretation in regards to context and style may differ from the artist’s/artists’ initial message and technique. This is why understanding art can be so subjective.
Being an art patron, one is usually paying an artist to have something done because of their particular style. One may dictate the content but rarely ever the technique in this relationship.
Being a member of the audience, one is left with open subjectivity–in other words, you can say, think, or feel whatever you want. That is where the beauty of art is found for most people. However, there is a right or wrong interpretation if one considers the artist’s/artists’ initial intent.
Being an artist experiencing artwork from another, one often thinks from a perspective of “What would I have done differently?” or “What would my medium or style’s take on this be?” Often times, an artist fancies artwork that either vaguely resembles work of their own, or rather artwork that is highly opposite from their own–and of course a more moderate level of appreciation may exist as well.
Being a curator, of course artwork would be filtered through the needs of an exhibit’s or collection’s context. There is usually a heavier emphasis on the importance of meaning over technique in this relationship between person and art. Regardless of technique, one would not include The Lamentation of Christ in a show about cats would they?
Being an appraiser, one would represent the expectations and ideas of the market–an appraiser would view art mostly from a monetary trend. If there were a hype beast in the art world, the appraiser would be it. They only value what the populists value despite their own personal opinions about art.
With that said, there is no such thing as the perfect piece…