Take a photo of a barcode or cover
14 reviews for:
Secret Lives of Great Artists: What Your Teachers Never Told You about Master Painters and Sculptors
Elizabeth Lunday
3.7 AVERAGE
14 reviews for:
Secret Lives of Great Artists: What Your Teachers Never Told You about Master Painters and Sculptors
Elizabeth Lunday
3.7 AVERAGE
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
3.0
Not a bad book, though some of the “shocking” facts are commonly taught in art classes and really aren’t that shocking. Why isn’t Caravaggio’s treatment of his mistress neglected?
Still a fun read at times.
Still a fun read at times.
marianis182's review against another edition
3.0
Debería hablar un poco más de las corrientes.
Recomendado si quieres leer de chismes.
Recomendado si quieres leer de chismes.
susieliston's review against another edition
4.0
This book looks like it would be rather salacious, in a Hollywood Babylon sort of way, it's not. I bought it quite awhile ago when I first decided to seriously improve my art knowledge, but it got pushed by the wayside. When I recently came upon it, I almost didn't bother reading it at all, it is a series of short chapters on major artists of the western world. I know all this stuff, now, right? But I gave it a try, and it was very good. It was written well, never dry, a lot of the information I did know, but I also learned a lot. I would certainly recommend this to anyone just starting to study art. One caveat, there are only comic book style cartoons as illustrations, no photos or reproductions, so have the Internet standing by if you aren't familiar with the artworks in question.
thevivifriend's review against another edition
3.0
Took me ages to finish it and so many of the stories in the renaissance beginning of the book are now mixed up in my brain.
So many French asshole men, that was like 70% of the book and only 2 women Georgia O’Keeffe and Frida Khalo.
It does make sense historically that most “great masters” are European men and this is a book that roasts them. Which I was a fan of but then it got boring and I started thinking I wish I was learning about less known artists who are less assholes.
Pros are that it does a good job at taking people who were deemed geniuses off their pedestals and it humanises them.
So many French asshole men, that was like 70% of the book and only 2 women Georgia O’Keeffe and Frida Khalo.
It does make sense historically that most “great masters” are European men and this is a book that roasts them. Which I was a fan of but then it got boring and I started thinking I wish I was learning about less known artists who are less assholes.
Pros are that it does a good job at taking people who were deemed geniuses off their pedestals and it humanises them.
generalheff's review against another edition
4.0
Secret Lives briefly tells you the tale - warts and all - of 35 artists, primarily chosen on the basis of their (or one of their works) fame. Each artist gets about five pages, in which Elizabeth Lunday manages to pack a surprising amount.
This includes genuinely insightful discussion on specific artworks. Lunday's commentary on Jan Eyk's Arnolfini portrait (the first artist covered in the book) made me focus on the oranges in the window and the play of light on the woman's face, features I wouldn't have focussed on otherwise.
Around the discussion of artworks we are treated to concise bios of the artists in question. This gives a lot of detail in very little space: I feel like I know most of what I need to know about Caravaggio for instance, a man whose life was somehow more dramatic than his pioneering chiaroscuro paintings: he murdered someone, fled to southern Italy and then to Malta, joining the Knights of Malta for a time before being imprisoned by the group and having to be smuggled off the island. Despite such escapades he was heralded as a celebrity wherever he went.
A lot of the biographical detail is delivered via quotes from contemporaries which is a particularly nice touch; there was shock at a Paul Cézanne exhibit from the general public but Cézanne's fellow impressionists were in awe as we hear from Pissarro, "My enthusiasm is nothing compared to Renoir's. Even Degas has succumbed to the charm of this refined savage".
The third and most unique aspect of the discussion is of course (noting the title) the scandal and more salacious details of the artists. We hear about Manet attempting a dual but since neither party knew what they were doing it ended with bent swords and both sides agreeing enough was enough, honour restored etc. The discussion of Salvador Dalí's late-in-life orgies, arranged for his septuagenerian wife, is typical of the sort of 'not in A-level art' discussion you are treated to. Much of it is very funny: while some anecdotes may be familiar (most know of Andy Warhol's goings on at The Factory) a lot of it will, I imagine, be new. In the Warhol chapter (the last in the book) we hear about how he befriended Jimmy Carter's mother and took her to Studio 54, a nightclub. She proclaimed she didn't know whether she was in heaven or hell but she liked it. I defy anyone not to be amused by the prospect of a woman born in the 19th century going to a 70s nightclub with Andy Warhol and his entourage.
In sum the book is a funny and speedy whizz through a whole heap of art history. The language used can occasionally veer towards the 'trying to be cool or edgy'; use of the word "preggers" early on had me rolling my eyes. But luckily such irritants are few and far between. The main reason this book doesn't earn a full five stars it the lack of images of the artworks in question. I was constantly searching paintings online to understand the discussion. I imagine this is a rights thing (it would cost a fortune to get the rights to print all these images) but it's a real nuisance to read the book with a computer in front of you. With this one big exception, this is a fun, easy-to-read, surprisingly insightful book that, despite its pick-up and put-down coffee book nature will likely have you reading through the whole thing.
This includes genuinely insightful discussion on specific artworks. Lunday's commentary on Jan Eyk's Arnolfini portrait (the first artist covered in the book) made me focus on the oranges in the window and the play of light on the woman's face, features I wouldn't have focussed on otherwise.
Around the discussion of artworks we are treated to concise bios of the artists in question. This gives a lot of detail in very little space: I feel like I know most of what I need to know about Caravaggio for instance, a man whose life was somehow more dramatic than his pioneering chiaroscuro paintings: he murdered someone, fled to southern Italy and then to Malta, joining the Knights of Malta for a time before being imprisoned by the group and having to be smuggled off the island. Despite such escapades he was heralded as a celebrity wherever he went.
A lot of the biographical detail is delivered via quotes from contemporaries which is a particularly nice touch; there was shock at a Paul Cézanne exhibit from the general public but Cézanne's fellow impressionists were in awe as we hear from Pissarro, "My enthusiasm is nothing compared to Renoir's. Even Degas has succumbed to the charm of this refined savage".
The third and most unique aspect of the discussion is of course (noting the title) the scandal and more salacious details of the artists. We hear about Manet attempting a dual but since neither party knew what they were doing it ended with bent swords and both sides agreeing enough was enough, honour restored etc. The discussion of Salvador Dalí's late-in-life orgies, arranged for his septuagenerian wife, is typical of the sort of 'not in A-level art' discussion you are treated to. Much of it is very funny: while some anecdotes may be familiar (most know of Andy Warhol's goings on at The Factory) a lot of it will, I imagine, be new. In the Warhol chapter (the last in the book) we hear about how he befriended Jimmy Carter's mother and took her to Studio 54, a nightclub. She proclaimed she didn't know whether she was in heaven or hell but she liked it. I defy anyone not to be amused by the prospect of a woman born in the 19th century going to a 70s nightclub with Andy Warhol and his entourage.
In sum the book is a funny and speedy whizz through a whole heap of art history. The language used can occasionally veer towards the 'trying to be cool or edgy'; use of the word "preggers" early on had me rolling my eyes. But luckily such irritants are few and far between. The main reason this book doesn't earn a full five stars it the lack of images of the artworks in question. I was constantly searching paintings online to understand the discussion. I imagine this is a rights thing (it would cost a fortune to get the rights to print all these images) but it's a real nuisance to read the book with a computer in front of you. With this one big exception, this is a fun, easy-to-read, surprisingly insightful book that, despite its pick-up and put-down coffee book nature will likely have you reading through the whole thing.
badpunsanduwu's review against another edition
5.0
I'm afterall a sucker for fun facts and I started physically reading this book last year and due to the nature of this book picked it up randomly now and then .
I knew this was going to be a favourite and I'd be coming back to it just for fun even after completing it.. so I took my sweet time.
But this year I found an audiobook and thought you know what.. let's just read it all..
And I'm not surprised to say I quite enjoyed it.
It's newspaper format only played into it's content. It was scandalous but also informative. The illustrations has this old inkwork feel to them. It lays right in between a magazine and an art textbook.
My only gripe would be that you could put into pictures of the artworks to have a context to the artists' work because not everyone picks these kinda books knowing everyone of them.
And I will be picking this up again now and again to read a specific artist.
I knew this was going to be a favourite and I'd be coming back to it just for fun even after completing it.. so I took my sweet time.
But this year I found an audiobook and thought you know what.. let's just read it all..
And I'm not surprised to say I quite enjoyed it.
It's newspaper format only played into it's content. It was scandalous but also informative. The illustrations has this old inkwork feel to them. It lays right in between a magazine and an art textbook.
My only gripe would be that you could put into pictures of the artworks to have a context to the artists' work because not everyone picks these kinda books knowing everyone of them.
And I will be picking this up again now and again to read a specific artist.
megadallion's review against another edition
3.0
This one took forever for me to read. I kept getting distracted and losing interest. It's more like a bathroom reader; you can just pick it up and leave it as you please. It would make a good coffee table book – it'd probably be a good conversation starter. Reading this was like browsing through a stack of biographical works on a bunch of well-known artists. The author’s selected bibliography looks like just that, a collection of sweeping biographies of various famous artists that she skimmed through and pulled the juiciest, most interesting facts that would appeal to the widest audience. You definitely shouldn't use this book as a source if you’re writing a paper on an artist or anything. It’s more of a tongue-in-cheek humorous exposé, not a scholarly source. It’s like Ok or People magazine’s version of an art book.
If you’ve taken a lot of art history classes, most of the facts aren’t anything new, but I had forgotten about a few things that I’d learned in college (like that I share my birthday with Edgar Degas, ooh la la!) so this was a nice little reminder. I agree with some other reviewers that the little caricatures (although cute) got in the way more than they added to the book. The captions for the illustrations are summarized on one page and then there’s a full description of the scene depicted on the next page, so that repetition was a little annoying. I think Lunday would have been better off providing illustrations of the standout works that she focuses on instead since not all of them are well-known to people without backgrounds in art. Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring is easy enough to recall since there’s been a book and movie based on it, but unless you’ve had an art history survey class of some kind, you probably won’t remember what exactly Rembrandt’s The Night Watch looks like unless you google it. Overall a fun read and a good introduction to art history.
If you’ve taken a lot of art history classes, most of the facts aren’t anything new, but I had forgotten about a few things that I’d learned in college (like that I share my birthday with Edgar Degas, ooh la la!) so this was a nice little reminder. I agree with some other reviewers that the little caricatures (although cute) got in the way more than they added to the book. The captions for the illustrations are summarized on one page and then there’s a full description of the scene depicted on the next page, so that repetition was a little annoying. I think Lunday would have been better off providing illustrations of the standout works that she focuses on instead since not all of them are well-known to people without backgrounds in art. Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring is easy enough to recall since there’s been a book and movie based on it, but unless you’ve had an art history survey class of some kind, you probably won’t remember what exactly Rembrandt’s The Night Watch looks like unless you google it. Overall a fun read and a good introduction to art history.