Scan barcode
A review by cmd10634
Art Since 1960 by Christiane Paul, Michael Archer
4.0
Quite readable overview of post-WWII art. Hardly any depth on individual artists, but that's the flip side to the book's strength of guiding readers through such a breadth of art-world figures.
Typical paragraphs start with about 5 names & dates of artists. Then the paragraph gives a few sentences to each name, specifying individual works and their significance. Next paragraph repeats that formula with new names... again and again.
At times, it felt too fast: when that individual artwork wasn't printed in the book, how much can 2 sentences express about it? Yet Archer writes precisely so, more often, I got a clear sense of or at least an intriguing evocation about the work. And with 200+ illustrations (many in color) in my 2002 new/2nd edition, there often is an accompanying visual.
I don't recall any thesis given in a chapter or the book as a whole. That too is a strength & weakness. As a philosophy professor, I want a theory, a claim, a 'truth' about some set of particulars (crazy of me, I know!). But artists, art historians, and critics like Archer are much more focused on particular artists, works. They 'show' some discrete thing and leave generalities to readers who are so inclined. That is, they know what philosophers often forget: that the particular has reality and value even when not yoked to some world-historical theory about "Sensation," "Representation," "History," "The West," etc.
And yet! No sense that chapters or the whole book had much of a point or organizing idea other than "artists in this approximate timeframe." Again, giving something other than generalities about 'The Artwork' (generalities which others can form if they care to do so based on Archer's supplied particulars) is valuable, and is a skill (a duty, even?) of the critic.
Yet a mass of details held to gather by little more than "here are this decade's trends, which sort of differ and sort of resemble some prior trends' feels unrewarding, unfinished.
The upshot: a crisp read covering a wide variety of artists. Read it once through and then retain it as a list of artists, some of whom you will look into in greater depth, going beyond what this book could or attempted to give you.
Typical paragraphs start with about 5 names & dates of artists. Then the paragraph gives a few sentences to each name, specifying individual works and their significance. Next paragraph repeats that formula with new names... again and again.
At times, it felt too fast: when that individual artwork wasn't printed in the book, how much can 2 sentences express about it? Yet Archer writes precisely so, more often, I got a clear sense of or at least an intriguing evocation about the work. And with 200+ illustrations (many in color) in my 2002 new/2nd edition, there often is an accompanying visual.
I don't recall any thesis given in a chapter or the book as a whole. That too is a strength & weakness. As a philosophy professor, I want a theory, a claim, a 'truth' about some set of particulars (crazy of me, I know!). But artists, art historians, and critics like Archer are much more focused on particular artists, works. They 'show' some discrete thing and leave generalities to readers who are so inclined. That is, they know what philosophers often forget: that the particular has reality and value even when not yoked to some world-historical theory about "Sensation," "Representation," "History," "The West," etc.
And yet! No sense that chapters or the whole book had much of a point or organizing idea other than "artists in this approximate timeframe." Again, giving something other than generalities about 'The Artwork' (generalities which others can form if they care to do so based on Archer's supplied particulars) is valuable, and is a skill (a duty, even?) of the critic.
Yet a mass of details held to gather by little more than "here are this decade's trends, which sort of differ and sort of resemble some prior trends' feels unrewarding, unfinished.
The upshot: a crisp read covering a wide variety of artists. Read it once through and then retain it as a list of artists, some of whom you will look into in greater depth, going beyond what this book could or attempted to give you.