What do you think?
Rate this book
The Books that Shaped Art History: From Gombrich and Greenberg to Alpers and Krauss
Written by some of today's leading art historians and curators, this new collection provides an invaluable road map of the field by comparing and reexamining canonical works of art history. From mile M le's magisterial study of thirteenth-century French art, first published in 1898, to Hans Belting s provocative Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, the book provides a concise and insightful overview of the history of art, told through its most enduring literature. Each of the essays looks at the impact of a single major book of art history, mapping the intellectual development of the writer under review, setting out the premises and argument of the book, considering its position within the broader field of art history, and analyzing its significance in the context of both its initial reception and its afterlife. An introduction by John-Paul Stonard explores how art history has been forged by outstanding contributions to scholarship, and by the dialogues and ruptures between them.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published September 7, 2012
42 people are currently reading
509 people want to read
About the author
Richard Shone
96 books3 followersRichard Shone (born 1949) is a British art historian and art critic specializing in British modern art, and from 2003–15 was the editor of The Burlington Magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 31, 2013
I was excited as soon as I stumbled on this book in the bookstore of SFMOMA. At the most tactile level, it's a handsomely-published book (typography, paper, bookish photography). Right there it earns an extra star. It is an art book, after all.
The concept is simple: 16 essays on 16 art historians who published across the 20th century; essays authored in turn by younger art historians. A handful of the original historians were familiar even to an amateur like me (Ernst Gombrich and TJ Clark) but over the years I've dipped into the books of several of the others. What I've always lacked is a sense of context – art historians, like every other kind of writer or artist, are mostly responding to the work of previous art historians. Of course the history of art history isn't a seamless tale. It's rocked with contradictions, corrections, productive misreadings. Erwin Panofsky, who in his most famous book Early Netherlandish Painting made some famous mistakes, remarked: "I am too old not to know that error is just as important a factor in history — and scholarship — as truth."
Because these essays are written by scholars who admire and appreciate their predecessors even when they disagree with their conclusions, the writing is vibrant and penetrating. There's not a dull essay in the book. Anyone who remembers the art essays of the 80s and 90s, choked with coded references to the Gallic pantheon (Saussure, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida), can only be grateful for the clarity and grace of the prose in this book. Anna Lovatt's essay on Rosalind Krauss is a model, acute observations never clouded with jargon.
Anyone who enjoys thinking about thinking about art will enjoy this book.
The concept is simple: 16 essays on 16 art historians who published across the 20th century; essays authored in turn by younger art historians. A handful of the original historians were familiar even to an amateur like me (Ernst Gombrich and TJ Clark) but over the years I've dipped into the books of several of the others. What I've always lacked is a sense of context – art historians, like every other kind of writer or artist, are mostly responding to the work of previous art historians. Of course the history of art history isn't a seamless tale. It's rocked with contradictions, corrections, productive misreadings. Erwin Panofsky, who in his most famous book Early Netherlandish Painting made some famous mistakes, remarked: "I am too old not to know that error is just as important a factor in history — and scholarship — as truth."
Because these essays are written by scholars who admire and appreciate their predecessors even when they disagree with their conclusions, the writing is vibrant and penetrating. There's not a dull essay in the book. Anyone who remembers the art essays of the 80s and 90s, choked with coded references to the Gallic pantheon (Saussure, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida), can only be grateful for the clarity and grace of the prose in this book. Anna Lovatt's essay on Rosalind Krauss is a model, acute observations never clouded with jargon.
Anyone who enjoys thinking about thinking about art will enjoy this book.
June 4, 2018
*3.5
This book is flawed primarily in its conception. By following the development of art history as a discipline through 16 specific books, there's already a problem. Firstly, it is caught between telling the history of the discipline and between actually focusing on the books selected to be analysed. Secondly, there is no discussion of Feminist or Post-colonial art historians. Linda Nochlin receives a passing mention, but that's it really.
The book takes as it's subject a lineage of 20th century art historians whose names will, or should, be familiar to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the subject. The first 150 pages or so tend to be as dull and opaque as the writers discussed (Alfred Barr, Greenberg, Panofsky etc.) The entries on the emergence of social art history are more interesting simply due to their subject matter. Furthermore, the essays on Alpers and Krauss do well to be informative but also insightful.
The collection is generally rocky, with the entries varying greatly in their value. The entries on Kenneth Clark and Greenberg are quite unwilling to face the murkier aspects of their subject matter. In particular the almost complete disavowal of the feminist criticism of Kenneth Clark's study of the nude on the basis that critics have 'missed the point' of his study is grotesque. While the entry on Greenberg fails to mention his post-war, C.I.A funded trips to Europe to promote the individualism of American Capitalism in Art. Instead it focuses on his early years when he actually had Marxist tendencies which is fine but it feels like lying by omission of his more questionable later years.
Some of the essays just seem unwilling to relinquish the old gods of Modernist criticism, fortunately for the bulk of academic art history they're already dead. Overall, the book does do a decent job of spelling out the central points of each writer and does provide a good overview of how art history as a discipline has transformed over the past century.
I'd also only recommend this if you're already familiar with the subject; the densely theoretical discussions of analytical frameworks probably won't convert you.
This book is flawed primarily in its conception. By following the development of art history as a discipline through 16 specific books, there's already a problem. Firstly, it is caught between telling the history of the discipline and between actually focusing on the books selected to be analysed. Secondly, there is no discussion of Feminist or Post-colonial art historians. Linda Nochlin receives a passing mention, but that's it really.
The book takes as it's subject a lineage of 20th century art historians whose names will, or should, be familiar to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the subject. The first 150 pages or so tend to be as dull and opaque as the writers discussed (Alfred Barr, Greenberg, Panofsky etc.) The entries on the emergence of social art history are more interesting simply due to their subject matter. Furthermore, the essays on Alpers and Krauss do well to be informative but also insightful.
The collection is generally rocky, with the entries varying greatly in their value. The entries on Kenneth Clark and Greenberg are quite unwilling to face the murkier aspects of their subject matter. In particular the almost complete disavowal of the feminist criticism of Kenneth Clark's study of the nude on the basis that critics have 'missed the point' of his study is grotesque. While the entry on Greenberg fails to mention his post-war, C.I.A funded trips to Europe to promote the individualism of American Capitalism in Art. Instead it focuses on his early years when he actually had Marxist tendencies which is fine but it feels like lying by omission of his more questionable later years.
Some of the essays just seem unwilling to relinquish the old gods of Modernist criticism, fortunately for the bulk of academic art history they're already dead. Overall, the book does do a decent job of spelling out the central points of each writer and does provide a good overview of how art history as a discipline has transformed over the past century.
I'd also only recommend this if you're already familiar with the subject; the densely theoretical discussions of analytical frameworks probably won't convert you.
Read
September 8, 2021As an art history major in college, I had to take a course on different eras and methodologies in the world of art. I’m sure The Books That Shaped Art History (Thames & Hudson, 2013) would have been included on the class syllabus had it been available at the time. The volume contains a series of essays that examine important books and their influence on art history scholarship. Ranging in date from 1898 to 1990, the works cover a variety of subjects, from general art history to specialized monographs. The essays point out how each book was important for its time while also noting criticisms both from the period of publication and at later dates.
I very much enjoyed revisiting some important texts (I recommend the chapters on Erwin Panofsky and Michael Baxandall), but you don’t need to have read all of the titles listed to get something out of the book. Indeed, this is a good place to start if you are curious about the subject of art history and its development. Also of note are the bibliographical essays on significant scholars, along with publication histories and lists for further reading.
Reviewed by Kate Goldkamp, curatorial assistant, Archives and Special Collections
I very much enjoyed revisiting some important texts (I recommend the chapters on Erwin Panofsky and Michael Baxandall), but you don’t need to have read all of the titles listed to get something out of the book. Indeed, this is a good place to start if you are curious about the subject of art history and its development. Also of note are the bibliographical essays on significant scholars, along with publication histories and lists for further reading.
Reviewed by Kate Goldkamp, curatorial assistant, Archives and Special Collections
September 11, 2025
Yo creo que el libro es bueno, pero definitivamente es para especialistas. Se me ha hecho pesado y no he retenido gran cosa. Cuando lo compré (por internet) me esperaba otra cosa, libros de Vitrubio o Leonardo, por ejemplo
May 19, 2018
A wonderful survey of the history of art. Well-written with wonderful images. I only wish I could visit all the museums in the world to see these masterpieces with my own eyes.
December 22, 2017
I only read this because I was forced to through my studies. But, because of it, I got a more complete image on how art historians today view art and it contributed to the general art history discussion. Also, there were a few books mentioned that I really want to read because of my interest in the Middle Ages.
July 11, 2013
Like being back in grad school.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews