The Crucial Task of Grading Artist Works & Defining Periods

Part Three of the Rediscovery Series
By Peter Hastings Falk, Editor & Curator, Discoveries in American Art

One of the more difficult realities of working with an artist’s estate is accepting that not all works carry the same innovative weight. This is true of every serious artist, regardless of reputation. Creative lives unfold unevenly. There are moments of clarity, periods of searching, and times when earlier ideas are revisited without the same urgency. Grading the works in an artist estate collection brings these distinctions shines a light on quality and therefore value.

This exercise requires sorting the works by objectively assigning grades of A, B, or C. This may seem to be overly critical and even exclusionary, but it essential for collection appraisal as well as collection management. The qualifications of the person assigning the grades is key because they must be steeped in art history, have a deep understanding of the art market, and be aware of the artist’s path and purpose.

A painting assigned an A grade (and a plus or minus qualifier may be attached) is one that is aesthetically alluring and conceptually innovative when compared to similar works by their more famous peers or predecessors. One assigned a B grade is a good representative work by the artist, and it should eventually sell after years of building and reinforcing the artist’s stature, especially through regular exposure at galleries and museums. A painting graded C is one that, if the artist were alive and/or could set aside their ego, they would openly admit it failed their own standards and expectations. After all, that not every canvas that had been perched on their easel was an A. It’s natural that some would fail.

Throughout their careers, artists rarely arrive at a single conclusion. They constantly test ideas, abandon them, return to them, refine them, and sometimes exhaust them. Laying out an estate collection reveals all this activity.

Without this distinction, exhibitions lose focus and catalogues lose authority. Museums and scholars depend on clear editorial decisions when assessing an artist’s contribution. While it’s not necessary to publish grades, this process provides clarity for curatorial decisions. It protects the strongest work and prevents the artist’s legacy from being diluted by indiscriminate presentation. This is not a numerical exercise. It is a matter of judgment informed by comparison, context, and deep familiarity with the artist’s development. These insights allow us to distinguish between moments when the artist was celebrating an essential breakthrough and moments when they were simply reiterating what they already knew. This is why responsible collection appraisal clearly depends on this grading process.

Refinement Versus Repetition

Repetition presents one of the most subtle challenges in grading. An artist may return to a form or motif repeatedly. Sometimes this reflects deepening inquiry. At other times, it signals that the problem has already been solved.

The difference becomes apparent only through sustained comparison. Refinement shows intention. Repetition without development does not. This distinction cannot be made from a handful of works. It requires immersion in the full estate.

This is where experience matters. Without deep familiarity, repetition can easily be mistaken for consistency yet signal a decline in creativity.

The Most Publicly Visible Works are Not Necessarily the Most Important

One of the more persistent misconceptions in estate work is that the most finished or most familiar works must also be the most significant. But sometimes late works may demonstrate fluency but lack the urgency of earlier breakthroughs. And early works may appear tentative yet contain the seeds of innovation that define the artist’s contribution.

Grading allows us to separate confidence from consequence. It ensures that strength is measured by insight rather than polish.

This distinction is essential for long-term stewardship, and a hallmark of collection management. It informs what should be conserved first, what should be exhibited, and what should anchor the artist’s narrative.

Revealing an Artist’s Defining Periods

A “defining period” means a particularly fertile, creative, and influential phase within an individual artist’s career. When faced with a very large estate collection, these mature periods may not be obvious and instead may emerge gradually as the collection is studied in depth. Certain stretches show greater assurance. Decisions become more economical. Problems are resolved rather than avoided. It appears the artist knew precisely what they were pursuing.

But when estate collections come to us at Discoveries in American Art, they are typically ungraded and unorganized. That means hundreds of works were sitting together in storage racks or boxes for years without any consideration for organizing them based on style, subject matter, period, or size.

Identifying these breakout periods often happens unexpectedly. They may occur earlier than biographical narratives suggest, or later than conventional wisdom allows. They may coincide with geographic moves, changes in studio conditions, or personal circumstances that were never documented publicly. Therefore, the task is not to impose structure, but to recognize its flow. Once a defining period is identified, the estate begins to speak with greater coherence.

Grading — within Periods — is Essential for Building the Momentum of a Rediscovery Project

Grading requires judgment, and judgment carries responsibility. There is no formula that can replace careful looking. Decisions must be grounded in evidence and supported by historical understanding. They must also remain open to revision as new information emerges.

When done well, grading becomes the backbone of credible collection appraisal. It gives heirs, scholars, and institutions a framework they can trust. It allows the artist’s strongest contributions to stand clearly, without distortion.

Along the way, the defining periods are established — both providing momentum to the rediscovery process. Exhibitions can be shaped with intention. Catalogues can be structured around meaningful phases. Conservation efforts can be prioritized. The estate can be managed with foresight rather than reaction. Grading does not conclude the work. It makes the next steps possible.

In the next part of this series, I will turn to documentation. Specifically, how catalogues raisonnés, provenance research, and archival records transform an estate from a private holding into a permanent contribution to art history. Rediscovery depends on clarity. Grading provides it.