Customer Reviews

Modern Art, Revised and Updated (3rd Edition)

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

 

 

This is the text that I am required to read for my Art History course, so I might have some bias based on the fact that I'm being forced to read it, however in general I don't take much issue with required texts. I just find this book excruciating for multiple reasons:

1) Poor Organization
Image information is not directly next to the image. I am forced to hunt through a bunch of headings to discover the proper credits. When the author references an image that is not on that particular page or chapter, he does so by number (not page number, image number which is progressive throughout the book ranging from 1-877 over 452 pages) creating an annoying and time-consuming hunting game if I don't remember or know the image referenced. In addition to poor image organization, dates are poorly organized. Years and names are thrown around left and right, with no particular order, making it hard to really know what came before what. Information could definitely be organized better. (Or they could at least improve and make more accessible their timeline)

2) Language
As many before me have written, this book is verbose for no reason. Sentences run long and are loaded with multiple clauses that themselves have multiple subjects and verbs, making it hard to follow what the author is saying. I will stare blankly at sentences, reading and rereading them multiple times before I can get the semblance of a meaning. I also find that diction/word choice is very poor--or perhaps elitist would be a better term. The text has a variety of French terminology that is integrated without being defined. Because of four years of French I understand them, but I wonder how it affects people without this advantage. Adjectives, adverbs and verbs also suffer from poor selection. They are either too vague or too strong, and loaded with opinion rather than fact--which brings me to my next point.

3) Too Subjective
For an art history textbook, I would expect to learn more about the factual events rather than how the author personally feels about each painting and artist. I would say this book divides its time between 25% factual and 75% opinion (hyperbolic perhaps). Many statements are loaded with sentiments and suppositions not grounded in fact. I read phrases such as "must have intended" and "most likely wanted" and expect some sort of support but find none. This of course leads me to doubt them. Plus they do not explain sufficiently enough for me how and why these artists revolutionized art. They establish connections between artists (i.e. "[this guy] influenced [that guy] and all modern art stems from the perfect genius of Cezanne) and I am expected to believe them just because they say it. I'm sure evidence exists somewhere, it would have been nice if they referenced it.

4) Typos
Pretty self-explanatory. A few typos are okay and expected, but there are so many in this text that it's laughable. Though these don't contribute directly to the subject, it does have the unfortunate habit of casting doubt on the authority of the text. When I'm already having issues of doubt to begin with, this does not help.

Now I do have to admit that this book does have a few good points. The pictures are beautifully reproduced and printed. Although I'm not sure how accurate they are in accordance with the original work, I feel like I have a good sense of the image. They also provide a large variety examples of various artist's works (in their different periods), which helps me to familiarize myself with their styles. I actually enjoy going through the book, looking at the pictures and trying to guess authorship. Also, I have found a new respect for the conceptualization of a few artists who we've studied. But I can only enjoy the thinking behind their works and not the works themselves because I am so sickened by the uninhibited idol worship of the authors.

Pompous is a great way to describe it, a very "we know, you don't and we're not going to tell you" view. This book is not to educate the beginner. Maybe it would work for someone more familiar with the subject matter, but it is terrible for an intro level course such as the one I'm taking.

Reviews of Hunter's text run the gamut from being a great text to being a horrible one. Many here comment on the authors language usage which at times can be rather impenetrable and verbose, bordering on pompous. Ironically, the text is laden with typos. Page arrangement could have been better planned. Often image title, number, and accompanying data fails to be next to or near the image referenced. These critiques aside, it is a helpful text for those who have some background in art history (and a good vocabulary). I would not recommend this text for a beginner, but would suggest it for someone who has a moderate background in the arts.

I had to have this for an art history class. it is terrible. It seems like the authors decided to see how smart they could make themselves seem by using very difficult and profession specific language. it is quite verbose and extremely difficult to follow. I would have been lost if my professor had not had online lecture notes which were a thousand times clearer. As a result I ended up not using the book after the first week or two of class. Gardners Art Through the ages is much clearer than this book, but I'm not sure if they have a book on modern art, it would be worth checking out. If you are a grad student in art history you may like this book, otherwise, don't bother.

This book has a lot of information. The format is to crowded and needs more headings. Everything sort of runs together

This is a very intense book. You have to have a strong background in order to fully appreciate the book. Many pictures inside to help you understand the concept. I highly recommended.

After a while the obvious bias of the authors against the German expressionists becomes unbearable. In chapter 7, we learn that the Fauves were representatives of "French Expressionism" and "the century's first expressionist artists", before "the Teutonizing of the term". (page 101) Secondly, the authors insist on anglicizing the names of German art movements such as Die Brücke ("The Bridge") or Die Blaue Reiter ("The Blue Rider"), while the Fauves remain simply the Fauves, not "The Wild Beasts". The authors are very eager to imply that everything the German expressionists did was an impulsive and superficial reaction to the godlike creations of Henri Matisse.

Some more choice examples, which speak for themselves:

"In many respects so similar to the Fauve works of Matisse, the Expressionist art first produced in 20th-century Germany is readily distinguishable from that of the French master by the clear absence of the latter's balance of intellectual control and response to an harmonious natural world... German artists, however, enjoyed a far less effective and moderating tradition of realism, and thus had little taste for pragmatism and logical analysis, processes inherited from the humanist enlightenment and firmly fixed as the solid underpinning of French artistic values." (112)

"...German artists contemporary with the Fauve experiment could respond only superficially to the formalist aesthetic then dominant in France." (112)

"Max Pechstein... had the greatest commercial success, possibly because he responded to the influence of French art and hence was more decorative and less brutal than his associates."(115)

"If one may hazard a generalization, the Blue Rider artists can be said to have combined in their styles Cubism's geometric structure with the pure, painterly color of Robert Delaunay and the Fauves, to which they added a distinctly Teutonic brand of vehement emotionalism and "spirituality"." (117, the quotes there are the author's)

Before the Chapter on German Expressionism, the authors sing the undiluted praises of Matisse and crew in a chapter entitled "French Expressionism", a concept that in years of study of art history I have never heard of before except perhaps in connection with Chaim Soutine. Matisse is a masterful painter, yes, but don't choose this book if you want anything approaching a balanced survey of the subject.

I teach Modern Art and have been using this book for years. Why? Because when I started teaching this course, this is what another professor I respect used. You become invested in a textbook with PowerPoint presentations, tests, lectures, etc. Enough is enough. This book completely lacks organization and is ridiculously pompous. The authors have no ability to distill ideas and limit the limitless ways in which something can be stated and ultimately contradicted. Chapters are peppered with dozens of interestingly worded sentences and paragraphs describing the same idea. It feels as though the writers fell in love with all of them and could not bring themselves to leave anything on the cutting room floor, so spread them out, thereby giving an allover composition of similar ideas that confuses students. If I ask a question about a chapter, they look at me blankly. They cannot extract organized information. I doubt I could at their age. In fact, when I read this book I feel as though I'm listening to a recording of crescendos. This makes my job incredibly difficult. I have to hand out reading guidelines and my lectures must include apologies for the complexity of ideas regarding Modern Art History to excuse the text. This book is absurd as a teaching tool. If you already know a bit about art history and want to peruse this book for snippets of great insight - 5 stars! If you want to teach art history like Jackson Pollock approached a canvas - 5 stars! Both have their place.

I have no idea where to go from here but it is in the opposite direction. I am exhausted by the effort of supporting the incoherence of this textbook.

This book contains reproductions of major paintings and sculpture of the 20th century. The color reproduction is good; the colors are very close to true. The major works of the 20th century have been included. In this respect, it is a good reference. However, the text is not well-written. Look for coherent presentations of styles, movements, and individual artist's techniques in another book.

Has many beautiful photos of art works and good information if you sift through all the rhetoric. However, this book is used in classes attended by students who are only trying to fulfill an art requirement before graduating. The vocabulary is too discipline specific, in other words you would have to be an art student trained in analyzing artworks to understand in. Besides that the style is so worshipful of artists and movements that it can get irritating and tedious.

This book was assigned to me as a text for a class in art history. If you are looking for a modern art anthology, this is a book for you. There are loads of beautiful pictures chronicling the trends in western art and architecture from the impressionists through the 20th century. However, if you are a student looking for a straightforward, encyclopedic, factual and chronologic approach to the subject, be prepared for a struggle. The writing is surprising more literary than historical and flits from trends to styles, to various artists, and back. Granted, trends in "modern art" could no longer occur in isolation (as in the classical period through the 19th century), especially in the age of modern communication, TV, film, and computers. So we are left to the interpretations and opinions of art historians to fathom and expound upon the influences of this on that, of this artist on that artist, of this historical event on that choice of color, design, or material. The book is most enjoyable, as a sort of non-fictional novel. It's tough going for an art student.