Scan barcode
chadhere's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
marjolein's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
5.0
eviecj's review against another edition
5.0
perfect book - “women artists: the creative process”and “being the subject of art” especially so. and the carrie mae weems interview !!! i bow at the altar
vsarna's review against another edition
3.0
I struggled with what to rate this book as! I was between a 3 and a 4 so maybe a 3.5 is fair? Listen when Hooks is on? SHE IS ON. She hits the ball out of the park, hits the nail on the head, etc. When she talks about art as self expression, representation, and having multiple meanings and no one correct meaning, she kills it.
However the section talking about woman who don’t leave abusive men for “material wealth” felt out of touch. I know this book was published in 1995, but why does this topic still come up? The emphasis should be on why did someone think it was ok to abuse another person, not on the person who has been abused. Additionally, for me it reeks of privilege. Who’s to say the abused can leave? Would they even have access to any finances?
On a more personal level, I hate when a book has random photos in the middle. Hate it! These photos weren’t even for the artist Hooks was talking about at the time. And in many sections, Hooks would be talking about one piece of art and than there would be a completely different piece of art in text. I just prefer a more linear presentation! Another thing that’s probably just me, is that I just don’t vibe with the Freudian psychoanalysis. I just have never bought into it so a few of her analyses felt like she was grasping at straws, especially in the section about Michael Jordan and Mike Tyson. But that might just be because I just have never clicked with the psychodynamic perspective in any way shape or form.
However the section talking about woman who don’t leave abusive men for “material wealth” felt out of touch. I know this book was published in 1995, but why does this topic still come up? The emphasis should be on why did someone think it was ok to abuse another person, not on the person who has been abused. Additionally, for me it reeks of privilege. Who’s to say the abused can leave? Would they even have access to any finances?
On a more personal level, I hate when a book has random photos in the middle. Hate it! These photos weren’t even for the artist Hooks was talking about at the time. And in many sections, Hooks would be talking about one piece of art and than there would be a completely different piece of art in text. I just prefer a more linear presentation! Another thing that’s probably just me, is that I just don’t vibe with the Freudian psychoanalysis. I just have never bought into it so a few of her analyses felt like she was grasping at straws, especially in the section about Michael Jordan and Mike Tyson. But that might just be because I just have never clicked with the psychodynamic perspective in any way shape or form.
averdesca1's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.25
Really engaging theory read. Particularly enjoyed her section on self care.
tallblackguy's review
2.0
I wanted to like this more, but just couldn't. While it did get me thinking about things like art education and the seeming need for art critics to shape their views and writing to expectations put on them by Eurocentric norms and practices, it didn't do much in terms of giving me more to look at in terms of reviews and writing that were accesible or embraced what there is of AfAm visual art tradition.
In the few turns she takes at it, of writing about the art and interviewing artists themselves, hooks really can't escape the verbosity nor the urge to gush over her interview subjects, often outpacing them for lines. In more example than one, she gushes on for 200-300 words, only for the artist to respond "Yes." If this is what art crit is, even without the Eurocentrism, it's definitely apt to not appeal to anyone but the moneyed and social strata who look at art in terms of investment value instead of aesthetics or visceral connections.
In the few turns she takes at it, of writing about the art and interviewing artists themselves, hooks really can't escape the verbosity nor the urge to gush over her interview subjects, often outpacing them for lines. In more example than one, she gushes on for 200-300 words, only for the artist to respond "Yes." If this is what art crit is, even without the Eurocentrism, it's definitely apt to not appeal to anyone but the moneyed and social strata who look at art in terms of investment value instead of aesthetics or visceral connections.
More...