Scan barcode
w3tiger13's review
5.0
A great book for those who no nothing about art and art theory. Freeland calls into question what is considered art and what is not by looking at and explaining the perspectives of several art critics.
amberhayward's review
3.0
Really, really excellent book for people who don't necessarily "get" more modern art. Also good for people who like art but don't know why (or don't like art but don't know why).
regnarenol's review
4.0
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
My first question before I got started was: as someone who's not formally trained in philosophy, how much would I actually learn from a text like this? I love reading about philosophy, but I have no illusions about my ability to fully grasp concepts that can take smarter people lifetimes.
Quite a lot, it turned out, and the first reason for that is the language itself. It is simple, clear and mostly avoids technical terms that would have at the least slowed me down, or at worst, remained totally opaque to me.
The second reason is how the book lays out its central questions. They're framed simply: Is there such a thing as good art? Since it seems like for every piece of art, there are those who love it and those who hate it, so is all art subjective? If so, and everything is art, what does it mean for something to be art at all? What does cultural context have to do with it? Does the experience of the 'receiver' factor into it? Or is it all about the intention of the creator? Or is it something about the relationship between the two? What does time (and history) have to do with how we see art? What do different media have to do with how we see art? I haven't covered everything I'm sure, but the point is: these are questions that you could ask anyone, and they'd likely have an opinion.
What the book does is: present cogent theories that attempt to answer some or all of them, and then get into why and in what contexts they work, and when they don't. It is only a primer after all, so it doesn't dive deep into any individual theory, but that isn't the point of this book, in my view.
The point of this book isn't to convince you of the rightness of any individual theory beyond doubt. The point of this book is challenge your belief - if you have one - that you understand just exactly what art is, and present to you the complexities of the philosophy of art. It wants to show you that the surface of a lake you might perceive as placid and uninteresting merely hides a complex universe of activity just below the surface. It wants you to understand the scope of what you didn't even know that you didn't know, and show the way to some answers.
And it does a fine job with it! I'll throw in a caveat however, or perhaps a reading tip. Keep an open mind, and try to work with the assumption that every theorist you encounter has something to learn from. To some - like the French philosopher Baudrillard - my immediate reaction was rejection. (This is just word salad!) But after a second, more purposefully charitable read, I began to dimly sense what he was getting at, and while I still didn't quite agree, I now knew where I had to take my argument if I wanted to know more. With that in mind, go read it! I have no idea if this book is worthwhile for professional philosophers, but for anybody who's wondered about the question of art, and would like to scratch the surface of some serious answers, it definitely is.
My first question before I got started was: as someone who's not formally trained in philosophy, how much would I actually learn from a text like this? I love reading about philosophy, but I have no illusions about my ability to fully grasp concepts that can take smarter people lifetimes.
Quite a lot, it turned out, and the first reason for that is the language itself. It is simple, clear and mostly avoids technical terms that would have at the least slowed me down, or at worst, remained totally opaque to me.
The second reason is how the book lays out its central questions. They're framed simply: Is there such a thing as good art? Since it seems like for every piece of art, there are those who love it and those who hate it, so is all art subjective? If so, and everything is art, what does it mean for something to be art at all? What does cultural context have to do with it? Does the experience of the 'receiver' factor into it? Or is it all about the intention of the creator? Or is it something about the relationship between the two? What does time (and history) have to do with how we see art? What do different media have to do with how we see art? I haven't covered everything I'm sure, but the point is: these are questions that you could ask anyone, and they'd likely have an opinion.
What the book does is: present cogent theories that attempt to answer some or all of them, and then get into why and in what contexts they work, and when they don't. It is only a primer after all, so it doesn't dive deep into any individual theory, but that isn't the point of this book, in my view.
The point of this book isn't to convince you of the rightness of any individual theory beyond doubt. The point of this book is challenge your belief - if you have one - that you understand just exactly what art is, and present to you the complexities of the philosophy of art. It wants to show you that the surface of a lake you might perceive as placid and uninteresting merely hides a complex universe of activity just below the surface. It wants you to understand the scope of what you didn't even know that you didn't know, and show the way to some answers.
And it does a fine job with it! I'll throw in a caveat however, or perhaps a reading tip. Keep an open mind, and try to work with the assumption that every theorist you encounter has something to learn from. To some - like the French philosopher Baudrillard - my immediate reaction was rejection. (This is just word salad!) But after a second, more purposefully charitable read, I began to dimly sense what he was getting at, and while I still didn't quite agree, I now knew where I had to take my argument if I wanted to know more. With that in mind, go read it! I have no idea if this book is worthwhile for professional philosophers, but for anybody who's wondered about the question of art, and would like to scratch the surface of some serious answers, it definitely is.
tardycreative's review
4.0
A good insight to what is classified as art... basically anything, especially anything that sells!