Connoisseurship is a slippery concept, but in simple terms a connoisseur is an expert judge. In the field of art, it means particularly the ability to distinguish the work of different artists, but can include knowledge of the physical characteristics of works of art (technique, condition, restoration), and their place in art history (period, style, school). The term was first used widely in the eighteenth century, often as a term of derision against new ‘experts’ who were usurping the traditional authority of artists to judge each other’s work.

Today, controversy about the relevance of connoisseurship persists. Regarded by many as elitist, there is often a cultural divide rather than a debate about the issue, with the two sides rarely engaging directly. Museums and art galleries tell you who painted the pictures on their walls, but they rarely explain issues central to connoisseurship - such as condition and style. Academic art history has tended to reject connoisseurship, with a turn towards theory and social history. Connoisseurship only really thrives in commercial art, and many of the most sensitive connoisseurs are in the art trade.

Has the connoisseur has his day and, if so, who can help us judge fine art? Is the question of judgement really just down to us, how we feel about a picture? Do we lose something by not turning a connoisseurial ‘eye’ on art? Can anyone be a connoisseur? What makes connoisseurship a worthwhile approach to studying art?