Customer Reviews

Art Since 1940

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

art since 1940 is a well researched and methodically presented book on contemorary art and art makers. the introduction and opening chapters deal with movements such as surrealism and are a very good lead up into the art after 1940. the author has dealt with various movements and expanded on specific artists from each of these phases in art. one does feel however that the portions on certain artists were sketchier than others, especially with regards to the visual material provided. also the book could have been planned better in terms of the placement of photographs along with the corresponding text. All in all, however, as an art student, I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone who ever wondered what all that 'thrown about paint'in jackson pollock's work was all about. The life history of the artists was well researched and wasnt superficial like a lot of books on art and provided a valuable insight into the art work itself.

I purchased this book for my Contemporary Art class. It's chock full of great information, and lots of excellent quality samples of art throughout. Worth getting if you're interested in 'educating' yourself in the vernacular of art -- both modernism and contemporary.

I used this book when I was a student and have referred to it multiple times since I graduated. Simply said, I love it. It presents the work of artists of the major movements in a clear way, without the jargon that is so common in other art books. I would recommend it for anyone interested in modern and contemporary art or anyone who has been to a museum of modern art and not understood what they are looking at. It is also a great affirmation to all of us working in creative fields that there are actual people producing this work, and Fineberg beautifully illuminates these personalities.

As contemporary art history textbooks go, this is an excellent one. It is very typical for twentieth-century art history to be divided into two courses (divided at WWII), and this is a useful place to begin studying post-war art. It is very informative, it presents a broad range of artists, and it articulately and concisely teases out some of the most important issues in contemporary art-making.

I disagree with previous reviewers on a couple points:
1. This book is quite readable. Anyone who has read any contemporary art theory/history (I have read a lot of it) knows how obnoxious and opaque the jargon can be. Fineberg does a good job of introducing some difficult ideas without resorting to jargon: he writes clearly and with the intention to communicate. This book will work well, even if you haven't studied art before.
2. There is no need for this book to include design, comics, advertising, etc. The suggestion that Fineberg should have included "Ansel Adams, Walt Disney, Gottfried Helnwein, H.R. Giger, Dr. Suess, and Playboy magazine" betrays a total misunderstanding of what is meant by 'contemporary art'. I think that books do need to be written about those subjects, but to demand that this one include them doesn't make sense.

There are a few problems with this book:
1. I do agree with a previous reviewer that there is a paucity of photography. Photo has played a significant role in contemporary art discourse, and it is very underrepresented in this book. This leaves a conceptual gap in the train-of-thought.
2. I question the amount of space that Fineberg devotes to some artists. For instance, he devotes 8 pages to Alice Aycock (who, quite frankly, is not a significant presence in contemporary discourse), whereas Ann Hamilton only gets a page and a half; John Baldessari gets 3 paragraphs; and Peter Halley gets 1 sentence. I would have made some different choices, but hey, this an introductory survey book--he can't do justice to everyone and we should give him leeway in that respect.

The introduction sets an opinionated tone as the author uses such words as "I believe" and implies a bias towards art. There are several punctuation mistakes and excessively long sentences from the beginning and throughout the body of the text. While the author attempts to relate art to the reader, ninety per cent of this book is filled with paintings and sculptures. Some of the omitted or hardly mentioned art forms include architectutre, photography and music, as well as art forms like minimalism and cubism. This also leaves out many influential artists including Georgia O'Keefe, Richard Avedon and Josef Albers is only briefly mentioned. The title itself suggests that different art forms are covered, however, this is not the case. Perhaps a title which says "Fine Art..." would direct the audience toward the topics in the the book. Art is so much more than painting or abstract sculptures, and should therefore encompass the vision beyond the painting by providing a more complete understanding of art forms. This is a serious flaw in the outlay and design of the book and the text appears to be written to suit the author, not the reader. If this criticism seems harsh then it is meant to make you think from a different point of view. Is this book what you are looking for?. Without mentioning price, the University bookstore in my city charged a small fortune for the book and for that kind of money I expected better or at least a better attempt at writing a book about art.

I am pretty happy with the book I realize that it is used. Glad I was able to get the hard cover book instead of the soft cover I think it will last longer.

By this book, 1940 marked the time that photography died and was replaced by vast amounts of performance art. Can you seriously present a "survey" of contemporary art without even acknowledging photography in any form?

This book by Finberg is professionally written, edited, and with lots of high quality color examples of the art being discussed. It covers a wide range of individual artists and art movements from the 1940's onward. The problem with book is that the range is not wide enough. Fienberg doesn't give equal treatment to art forms, and the visual arts even begin to take a backseat to performances and installations. It can be argued that new genres of art have emerged and should be discussed, but certainly not at the expense of other forms in a book presented as "art since the 1940's". There is a lot of art since the 1940's that isn't mentioned, though it should be, either because of significant cultural impact, or because of influence on artists that are discussed in the book. For example, there is no mention of animation of any kind, and relatively little coverage of realism, figurative work, design, comics, or advertising. Whether certain people like it or not, Ansel Adams, Walt Disney, Gottfried Helnwein, H.R. Giger, Dr. Suess, and Playboy magazine have had a major impact and more worldwide recognition than virtually all of the artists Fineberg discusses. While some may cast these off as unworthy of discussion in a book about "high art", knowledge of the evolution and integration of the "low arts" is essential to understand concepts of "pop art", "appropriation", "feminist art", and "post modernism". Fineberg's tone is celebratory with certain artists more than others, and makes odd choices on which artists to give the most attention to. The reason I titled this review "bad religion" is because this book is like a sermon about art by someone who is presenting their own doctrine, rather than telling the whole story. If you read this hoping to be educated about art, you are out of luck, unless your goal is to sound intellectual while sipping wine at the opening reception of the next retrospective show of minimalist art in Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago. Oh, it might also be useful if you are writing a paper for an art history class...

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a fan of contemporary art. That being said, this book is incredibly difficult to read. For me, each sentence took several re-reads before I could get some type of clue as to what he was trying to say. I consider myself a good reader and this book was way out there with the uppity language. My husband would get a kick out of me reading sentences to him, just because they were impossible to understand. If you like this sort of thing, then you might like the book. I, however, did not like the book. I also did not like how they would describe a work of art in great detail, yet show you a totally different piece from that artist. It made if difficult to visually see what they were talking about. My professor did a much better job explaining the material covered in this book.