Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism | Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, ... |...

Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism | Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, ... | Language is a barrier!

books:

Knopf The Nutcracker/ Co... From Luby's to the... String Theory, Vol... Art Since 1900: Mo...

	Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, ... Thames & Hudson, 2005 - 688 pages average customer review:based on 22 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

beating their cannons into canon

I suspect that a number of these comments were inspired by a scathing review in the Wall Street Journal by Eric Gibson (the "culture war" ones at least). But maybe not...
I would have liked to write a more critical review of this book, although, or perhaps, because I liked it so much, but with all of these rather "blunt" opinions, it is hard to do anything but just praise it. Still, I'll throw out a couple of points of critique:

1. It is obvious that the authors are trying to create a kind of definitive history of 20th century art. This is in part based on their particular take, and indeed, sometimes this is more evident than others (esp. the closer you get to the present), but in general it is a very thorough book (presenting numerous positions). That they were among the founding editors of October should make it more interesting to read than otherwise. Needless to say, it should also be read in this way. There is definitely a certain direction to this work. But isn't that what writing and scholarship is all about? See also point 3.

2. I do wish that they would call into question some more of their own philosophical and political "foundations." For the most part, much like in October, their critique and development of Marxism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, "post-structuralism" etc. all seem to focus on a historical or art historical USE of these fields rather than going to the "heart of the matter" and maybe trying to address them on a philosophical or for that matter on a "real-political" level. It would be nice to be able to read the work from a philosophical or political vantage point too, not just an art historical one...they seem to SOMETIMES ironically mirror their "blunt" critic's weak position of lumping everything into one common trend of "continental philosophy" or "postmodernism" etc.

3. The tension between textbook and the "avant-garde" art critic: I find this to be sometimes a bit too much, end up asking myself, am I in some "contemporary art 101 class?" or am I directly "on the front"...but in the end I find this also to be interesting. Trying to make an institution, a textbook classic out of all of these disparate attempts to undermine such an idea... I hope the next version is less well-mannered and proper and a bit crazier (less a text book).

for more information click here

Language is a barrier!

The Publisher's Weekly review spoke volumns about this book. It was well written, however for the majority of the students in the class I attended this book left them more puzzeled than informed. One of the reasons the instructor order this title was due to the organization of the chapters. It is broken down according to dates and not periods. This was a novel new way to present art history because you suddenly realize how art periods overlaps. One period does not come and suddenly end, it is a melding of periods, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. If you already have a basic knowledge of 20th century art this is well worth adding to your library. If you are new to 20th century art ask your instructor to supply you with alternative titles that are written less like a doctorial thesis.

for more information click here

Eh.

The reproductions are good and very useful, but the language is a bit convoluted.

reviews: 1, page 2, 3, 4, 5

products you might be interested in