The first art review I read was on an exhibition held in Portland, Oregon by Dan Attoe written by Sue Taylor. Some of the things that really stood out to me about the review was how much Taylor described the artwork that it gave me a very distinct image in my mind about how the artwork looked. I feel as though this is a very important aspect in writing an art review. Something I did not like about the art review was how much Taylor picked apart the meaning of the art leaving no mystery for the viewer. The second art review I read was on Tony Greene held in Los Angeles written by Kate Wolf. Something I liked about this review that wasn't in the first review was a great amount of background information about the artist and artwork. I liked that Wolf informed the reader about the artists background and how the art came about. Overall I enjoyed reading the second one better merely because it left mystery about the artwork and didn't give too much opinion like the first one did.