Customer Reviews

Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, Volume 2: 1945 to the Present (College Text Edition with Art 20 CD-ROM)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Although I have read only the first half of "Art Since 1900," I feel compelled by the negative comments offered by other readers to express my considerable admiration for this book. Because I am not an academic or other art world insider, I have no axe to grind regarding which artists or movements may be under or over-represented in the text. After reading a number of books on modern art, I have found this one to be, on the whole, head and shoulders above the rest. For example, "The Shock of the New" by Robert Hughes is a fine book, but it is very superficial by comparison with this one. What impresses me most about "Art Since 1900" is the incorporation of ideas from other disciplines dealing with modernity, including philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and literary theory, which provides a broader context for the subject than is usually presented in art history texts. For the benefit of those who are not already familiar with the intellectual history of the twentieth century, the authors include four introductory chapters and a glossary that help to familiarize readers with concepts of marxism, critical theory, psychoanalysis, formalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism. While the introductory chapters are not a substitute for wider reading on those topics, the authors succeed very admirably in making "highbrow" ideas accessible to "middlebrow" readers. But it is not necessary to master the contents of the introductory chapters in order to obtain a great deal of benefit from the remainder of the book. Each of the nearly 100 short chapters is, by itself, a polished gem that offers much food for thought, so that it is possible to approach the book by reading one chapter at a time and meditating on the ideas presented there for a while before returning to the text. In fact, such an approach may serve to resist the unconscious desire to oversimplify the great multiplicity of works and ideas that constitute modern art. While fragmentation is consistent with the postmodern attitude of the authors toward the subject matter, comprehension by others is facilitated by supplementing the chronological ordering of chapters with an inter-textual system of cross-referencing by artist and movement. Unlike more conventional art history texts, this book can provide readers with a greater appreciation of the capacity of modern art to provoke the kind of critical thinking that liberates the mind. What could be more useful in a society that is so thoroughly dominated by conformity and anti-intellectualism? If all Americans would read this book, the White House might never again be occupied by an ignoramous.

Face it, for better or worse, this is a crew we have to deal with. They've got their October power, and look at the author listings, all of them big-deal academics with a name after their name. Now they've tried to come down off the mountaintop to write for a less in-crowd than they usually bother with, and the book they've put together has all the blindness and insight everyone might expect. There's some great stuff on mainstream avant-garde movements (irony intended). But it's mostly European and American, and the readings are kind of limited: nothing political seems to have happened in 1968, and so on. However, the biggest downside is the weak section on contemporary art. Foster wrote most of the entries on the 90's, and they look like he was just going through the motions. He doesn't seem to connect with the new stuff the way he did in his prime in the 80's. Maybe they should have gotten some of those younger October editors onto the job (unless the farm team is too full of clones). And considering their attempt for a general audience, the glossary is hilarious. Even so, the entries through the 80's make this an important, although narrow, take on our dearly departed 20th century.

Art Since 1900 probably shouldn't be read by artists, younger ones at least. Here is where all your sincerity, all your peer support, all your sudden joy in thinking you've finally got it right this time, goes to die, splattered like meaningless bracken against the wall of Context, of History. Probably what's enraged so many people so much about this book is that its authors, scholars of 20th century art if there ever were any, aren't in the least afraid to make judgements, to call a bad idea a bad idea, to explore the limits of an artwork's relevance to the question: can art still matter? The criticisms of the book all seem to want to posit some grand democracy of artistic endeavor, or better still an anarchy, all the while ignoring the fact that we've already gone past the point of anarchy and moved into pure spectacle, which can only exist within the disavowal of history, and of judgement. Utopia's already here, but this book wants to mean more than that. Ultimately its message seems to be, simply: not making crap takes hard work. Read it and suffer.

An interesting textbook overall but doesn't do much in going beyond the usual OCTOBER brand of art history. If you want to read something else, don't expect to use their supplemental bibliographies because it will only take you to their student's work.

I was initially excited about this book because of its sleek design and because it seemed to have a lot of information, including a good variety of art images, but then I began to actually read the sections for class. The writers of this book seem to make it difficult to understand just to make themselves sound smart. There is good analysis in the readings, I just think that it could be written much clearer so that you don't have to read it over and over just to understand one concept. There are also a lot of references that the writers assume you will know, so I wouldn't recommend this to someone who is new at art history.

I suspect that a number of these comments were inspired by a scathing review in the Wall Street Journal by Eric Gibson (the "culture war" ones at least). But maybe not...
I would have liked to write a more critical review of this book, although, or perhaps, because I liked it so much, but with all of these rather "blunt" opinions, it is hard to do anything but just praise it. Still, I'll throw out a couple of points of critique:

1. It is obvious that the authors are trying to create a kind of definitive history of 20th century art. This is in part based on their particular take, and indeed, sometimes this is more evident than others (esp. the closer you get to the present), but in general it is a very thorough book (presenting numerous positions). That they were among the founding editors of October should make it more interesting to read than otherwise. Needless to say, it should also be read in this way. There is definitely a certain direction to this work. But isn't that what writing and scholarship is all about? See also point 3.

2. I do wish that they would call into question some more of their own philosophical and political "foundations." For the most part, much like in October, their critique and development of Marxism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, "post-structuralism" etc. all seem to focus on a historical or art historical USE of these fields rather than going to the "heart of the matter" and maybe trying to address them on a philosophical or for that matter on a "real-political" level. It would be nice to be able to read the work from a philosophical or political vantage point too, not just an art historical one...they seem to SOMETIMES ironically mirror their "blunt" critic's weak position of lumping everything into one common trend of "continental philosophy" or "postmodernism" etc.

3. The tension between textbook and the "avant-garde" art critic: I find this to be sometimes a bit too much, end up asking myself, am I in some "contemporary art 101 class?" or am I directly "on the front"...but in the end I find this also to be interesting. Trying to make an institution, a textbook classic out of all of these disparate attempts to undermine such an idea... I hope the next version is less well-mannered and proper and a bit crazier (less a text book).

Ok, parts of this book, especially the first few chapters, are really, really hard. But if you slow down enough, you can sometimes figure out what the author(s) are saying. Some of it is clearly written, so there must be at least one writer on board who can write for the educated masses.

This book does deal with a lot of issues that are important to contemporary visual artists, especially in the second half of the book. The roundtable discussion at the end is worth the price of admission alone.

The reproductions are really good.

I taught art history for a couple of years, and I would love to teach a class using this book. It raises a lot of issues that would be fun to talk about in a seminar. I wish I had had it when I was in graduate school in photography.

a remarkable collective work. it criss-crosses the entire twentieth century in complex and fascinating ways. a very important, and nearly immaculate, work.

I was thrilled to receive a copy of ART SINCE 1900 when it first arrived. While exceeding my expectations with regards to many heretofore undervalued art movements (e.g., Happenings, Fluxus, feminism, identity politics--those that the writers have actively repressed on their pages of OCTOBER in the past)--I was still deeply troubled to see that not one of these important art historians could write an original piece for the Harlem Renaissance chapter.

They opted, instead, to depend upon a Thames & Hudson assistant to carry out this task, and then (perhaps equally insidiously) relegate her name to a tiny line in the acknowledgements section---where she is vaguely thanked for her contribution by the publishers themselves, but not the authors.

A book about the importance of art's critique, its questioning of authority, its pivotal role in the cultural sphere and this is what we get at the end of the 20th century? Four authors who can't bring themselves to intelligently engage with a crucial moment in American art history? Since HF takes a psychoanalytic approach, tell us, what forms of repression are happening here?

Forget Gardener, these four giants of art history compile an international picture. Each year is represented by an article. One can read the book chronologically, topically, or by author. If you have to read a survey of art history, this is it.