Only if it's in the top .021392 percent of most amazing things I've seen.

Only if it's a truly amazing piece of work, something that wows people in every aspect when they look at it.

Not a critique. Nothing is "perfect". No matter how great it looks. One can say: OMG its perfect!!11!1! , but in reality it isnt.

That's not a critique. I critique is meant to help the artist see potential issues in their work and should also help them improve. "Criticism" is fault-finding, therefore a critique should be used to point out problems.

I don't really think it's possible to make a 'perfect' work of art. A critique to me is meant to give helpful tips, pointers and another perspective on the piece, not fawning over it. I'm not saying it's pointless to do it, but I think that is meant for the masters in a specific craft.

I think it's dependent on your status as a reviewer and any precedent you set. Is five stars "no problems" or "perfect?"

i feel like that's a bit subjective. Somethings seem perfectly amazing to one person, and flawed to another. It just seems to depend, but it would have to a pretty well rounded work.

Only if it's perfect, which is basically impossible, because everything is has a flaw. That's what makes it unique!

Only when a piece is truly amazing