Was gibt's zu sehen? 150 Jahre moderne Kunst

by Will Gompertz

Nach Jahren als Direktor bei der Londoner Tate Gallery hatte Will Gompertz genug – genug geschrieben, genug geredet, genug erklärt. Er entwickelte eine Ein-Mann-Comedy-Show über moderne Kunst und brachte sie selber beim renommierten Theaterfestival in Edinburgh auf die Bühne. Es wurde ein Riesenerfolg.
Seitdem ist Will Gompertz in Großbritannien der Kunstlehrer der Nation – extra für ihn richtete die BBC die Stelle eines Kunstkorrespondenten ein. Dieses Buch versammelt alles, was ihn ausmacht: Fundiert und gewitzt erklärt Will Gompertz im besten britischen Stil, was moderne Kunst ist und warum wir sie entweder hassen oder lieben. Er lädt ein zu einem kurzweiligen Ausflug von Monets Seerosen zu Van Goghs Sonnenblumen, von Warhols Suppendosen zu Hirsts eingelegtem Hai – und offenbart dabei die Geschichten hinter den Meisterwerken und die Geheimnisse der Künstler.
Erfrischend respektlos stellt Will Gompertz die Fragen, die man im Museum nicht zu stellen wagt. Statt vorzugeben, was gute Kunst ist, leitet er zur eigenen Urteilsbildung an.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, History, Art History, Design, Art Design, Cultural

448 pages, Paperback

First published September 6, 2012

Reviews

[AiK · Rating 3 out of 5]

История развития современного искусства, как история того, как человечество после изобретения фотографии постепенно "разучивалось" рисовать и ваять, но поставило интеллектуальность и символизм в объектах искусства во главу угла. Вплоть до Флуксус включительно, для меня все оказалось понятным и знакомым, хотя несколько новых имен все же было. От минимализма и последующих "-измов", хоть некоторые авторы и были знакомыми (Хёрст, Бэнкси, Кунс), знакомство с другими представителями contemporary art и пояснения к их работам были ценными. Читать лучше со смартфоном в руках или с компьютером с большим монитором, чтобы по интернету находить разбираемые работы в интернете и всматриваться в детали, при необходимости увеличивая их. Понравилось данное автором определение предпринимализма для искусства настоящего времени. Из современников только Ай Вэйвэй кажется интересным. Не понравилось, что автор считает творчество Саши Барона Коэна перформансом – искусством. Да, есть элементы пранка, но это отнюдь не искусство. С одной стороны, он высмеивает американское общество, но при этом, делает это путем подмены, искажения, принижения идентичности другого народа. Я только за высмеивание пороков современного казахского общества, но без выдумывания несуществующей культурной уникальности, которое является причиной буллинга и издевательств.

[Katia N · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to remind myself about the main visual art movements in the 20th century. And that fit the bill. It is very accessible and full of anecdotes, so easy to read. But it is more a survey and do not attempt more than that. I wanted to find out a bit more about philosophy of conceptual art. This is not the book for that. But it does touch upon the democratisation of art in the 20th century and a bit on Duchamp.

[Ярослава · Rating 4 out of 5]

Огляд мистецьких рухів від імпресіоністів до пост-постмодернізму чи як там назвати наші дні. Про базові імена нічого нового не вичитала, себто особливо несподіваного чи глибокого аналізу там нема, але якщо потрібен сумлінний дуже базовий огляд, то це цілком воно. Щоб читач не нудьгував, приправлено жартами штибу "Nowadays the word 'genius' is bandied around like a joint at a 1970s rock festival" і мнемоніками на кшталт "У кубізмі немає кубів, навпаки: кубізм визнає двовимірну природу полотна й категорично НЕ намагається створити ілюзію тривимірності. Щоб написати куб, митець мусить зображати його з однієї точки перспективи, тоді як Брак і Пікассо розглядають об'єкти з усіх можливих кутів".
Мєлоч, а пріятно - цитую: "Крім Малевича, виставлявся там ще один український митець, Володимир Татлін". Себто Малевич наш, Татлін наш, яка-не-яка, а перемога культурної дипломатії :)

[Katerina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Для тех, кто уже отличает Моне от Мане, а в Пикассо и Поллоке ещё плавает. Информативно, интересно, без воды и плоских шуток.

[Lyudmila Marlier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Это было прекрасно! Автор цитирует Симпсонов —я ставлю пять звёзд. На самом деле, для тех, кто вроде меня ничего не понимает в современном искусстве, и ходил по центру Помпиду и Mетрополитану максимально пришибленный, но под впечатлением— идеально. Никаких притянутых за уши забавных историй и натужного юмора, никакой надменности или гиперодержимости, просто история современного искусства: что, кто, почему и как понимать. Главное, ещё держать под рукой интернет и гуглить незнакомые имена и произведения, удваивает эффект

[Viviane Crystal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is a comprehensive, readable book for those ranging from art lovers who those looking at modern art and thinking, "I don't have a clue to what this is!"

Beginning with a short overview of how art as investment increases for both living and dead artists, the author begins with the story of how Marcel Duchamp rocked the art world with his "Fountain," a urinal turned upside down with some drilled holes. The point? What do you see? The artist would say to keep looking and then the layers of meaning may unfold for the viewer - or - perhaps it's just a urinal which elicits a variety of responses from the viewer. Is Gustave Courbet's "The Origin of the World" pornography or much more than its surface physicality? These flagrantly different conceptions are comic yet also a window into the world of contemplation and artistic creation that spans 150 years, that which is called "modern art."

The text then covers multiple schools of art, beginning with pre-Impressionism and Impressionism which is much more than many viewers perceive of as "just dots" and really convey the first time artists wanted to paint outdoors, carefully watching how light and shade created beauty in nature's everyday scenes. It also describes how the artists of this period risked so much and even started their own schools to rival the prevailing "Academy" system, speaking for the passion of creativity that they felt deserved a larger, appreciative audience.

So this story continues with coverage of Cezanne, Primitivism, Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Neo-Plasticism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Conceptualism, Minimalism, Post-Modernism, and Art Now. Making art three-dimensional on a flat surface, variations of color expressing how one views reality with more vivid colors creating emotional appeal, art with two simple colors that viewed long enough brought the viewer's unconscious into the perception, and so much more.

What Are You Looking At?... is a fascinating, intelligently written, very readable look into similarities, differences, and new concepts in the modern artistic world quite frequently seen at the Museum of Modern Art as well as other museums and galleries throughout the world. It's a must read for every person who wants to understand and appreciate great art! Superb and highly recommended!!!

[Boris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Най-яката книга, която прочетох тази година. Авторът (бивш директор на Тейт Галери) скромно заявява, че материалът в книгата е като за “начинаещи”, но честно казано се чувствам като завършил 2 семестъра по модерно изкуство.

Беше ми особено интересно да чета за импресионистите, с чиито ключови представители се запознах в музея Орсе - тук не беше пропуснато нито едно от имената, които ми направиха силно впечатление там.

Най-яко е, когато Гомпритз пише за Пикасо. Пикасо е Исус Христос на изкуството. За съжаление съм разглеждал само ранните му картини, скици и скулптори от розово - синия период. Но сега определено се насочвам с бясна скорост към Мадрид, за да наваксам с някои много ключови работи от портфолиото. Най-обичам, когаро литературата ни кара да посетим нови места.


Ще прочета всички останали книги на този автор.

[Macoco G.M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Si sois profanos en el arte como yo, os recomiendo este libro. Ameno y divertido, te da una visión general del arte contemporáneo.

[Lesya Aleksandroff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Смогла прослушать в аудиоверсии, хотя нонфикшн обычно хуже воспринимаю на слух. Последовательно о современном искусстве от импрессионистов до наших дней, по объёму самое то, интересно, без засыпаний. К своему стыду у меня дыра в «-измах» где-то сразу после Баухауза. Конечно, нужно учитывать время на то, чтобы гуглить все упомянутые произведения.

[Deb (Readerbuzz) Nance · Rating 4 out of 5]

Will Gompertz, arts editor of the BBC, takes us on a trip through modern art, and leaves us with both knowledge and a smile. No pompous artsy-fartsy fellow is Gompertz. No, instead he takes a light approach that is inviting, especially for those of us who came to the book without a lot of information about modern art.

What movements does Gompertz share with us? Impressionism. Primitivism. Cubism. Dadaism. Surrealism. Pop Art. For me, this book was my first introduction to Futurism, Suprematism, Neo-Plasticism, Abstract Expressionism, and Conceptualism.

What people does Gompertz share with us? Here is my list of my favorites: Monet, Manet, Renoir, Van Gogh, Seurat, Klimt, Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, Mondrian, Ernst, Magritte, Kahlo, Rothko.

The writing was user-friendly. I wish there had been more photos of art (doesn't it seem obvious that a book about art should have lots of illustrations?)

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author, Will Gompertz, is the BBC Arts editor and former director of London’s Tate Gallery. He takes us on a tour of modern art that is chronologically arranged, but focused on the question of what constitutes “art” and how that idea has unfolded over time.

He includes a lot of fascinating gossip and background about the artists of the “modern” period, and very informative vignettes about how they influenced one another. The competitive Picasso, in particular, responded to the achievements of his artist friends first by being mesmerized by them, and then trying to better them. (And succeeding time after time!)

The author shows quite clearly how each movement in Modern Art segued into the next, as the artists - often working together - tried to solve problems that arose, such as, for example, representing three-dimensional subjects on a two-dimensional canvas. What he writes of Braque and Picasso during the Cubist period could apply to other groups of artists as well:

…they were like a pair of jazz musicians, improvising with all manner of material and riffing ideas off each other.”

Even if you just go through the book to note the evolution of how artists defined art, you can get a sense of its general development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The concept of "what is art" changed from skill in exact representation, to getting to the "heart" of what was being seen, to excelling in design rather than illusory deception, to conveying concepts rather than materiality, to making an immediate and memorable connection with the viewer, to focusing on insight rather than sight, to prompting us to pay more attention to the everyday and the overlooked, to trying to create order out of chaos, to getting us to see that the viewer is as much a part of the work of art as the work itself.

And what about art that is totally abstract? Just lines and squiggles and colors? Gompertz maintains:

It’s a surprisingly tricky thing to pin down exactly what it is that makes those lines any different from the lines you or I might draw, but there is a difference. There is something about their fluidity, or composition, or shape that has millions of us flocking to modern art galleries to see abstract paintings by the likes of Mark Rothko and Wassily Kandinsky.”

He explains how each generation of modern artists removed more and more traditional details in their paintings so as “to capture atmospheric light (Impressionism), accentuate the emotive qualities of color (Fauvism), or look at the subject from multiple viewpoints (Cubism).”

Eventually, of course, the details were removed altogether. Artists came to see themselves as not in the business of “reproduction” at all, but rather of exploring new ways to represent truth “that might provoke previously untapped thoughts and feelings in the viewer.”

My favorite chapter (that is, the one from which I learned the most) is the one dealing with Pop Art. My reactions themselves could have been transformed into a pop art canvas: “Wow!” And “I never thought of that!” And “How devilishly clever!”

A recurring theme in the book is how advances in the other arts (especially music), the sciences, and even politics echo, reinforce, and reverberate with, changes in art. Sometimes abstract art is meant to be like music; sometimes it is meant to be like the mind; and sometimes, it is meant to suggest sociological commentary and/or change. And similarly, giants in the fields of music, psychology, science, and politics have been stimulated in their thinking by ideas they gleaned from artistic trailblazers.

Laudably, Gompertz also lets us in on a rather disappointing fact about modern art. He writes:

And yet, for all the rhetoric about creating new utopian societies and smashing the old elites, there has been one voice that has gone largely unheard. … Where, you might wonder, are the female artists?”

He includes a section on the marginalization of women artists such as the great Freda Kahlo, while noting that this situation continues even today, in an art world still largely dominated by white men.

Gompertz begins and ends the book with musings about Marcel Duchamp, the artist whom most contemporary artists cite as an influence, and whose seminal work “Fountain” is, according to the author, “the single most influential artwork created in the twentieth century.” The author concludes that whereas Picasso may have been the dominant force in the first half of the 20th century, “there is no question that the second half has increasingly been played out against a backdrop of Duchampian mind games.”

Discussion: The subtitle of the book is “The Surprising, Shocking, and Sometimes Strange Story of 150 Years of Modern Art,” and this is so apt. I must have said “who knew?!!!” at least twenty times while reading this. (Moreover, Jim’s occasional challenge of details in the book sent me off to google many times as well, finding not only that in every case that the author was indeed correct, but also thereby exposing me to even more fascinating bits about the item in question.) (FYI, the biggest question was about the feasibility of the production of 100 million porcelain individually hand-painted sunflower “seeds” by Chinese artist Wei-Wei and 1600 assistants, a brilliant exhibit as explained by Gompertz, but also one requiring that each artisan had to have produced 62,500 seeds. How did they do it and how long did it take? Read an interview with the artist, here.)

Evaluation: Gompertz is excited and passionate about his subject. He wants us to love and appreciate art, and his enthusiasm is infectious. His prose is animated and entertaining. (In fact, this book was an outgrowth of the author's standup comedy show in the UK about modern art.) There are a gazillion fascinating and eye-opening (both literally and metaphorically) concepts presented. Since most of them have to do with visual communication, however, the book clearly would have benefited from more illustrations. Even the few full color plates included are so helpful that it’s a sin there aren’t more!

It is not a book once can (or should!) scan or race through. Rather, I think it should be sampled and savored and contemplated, bit by bit. I could see it as a text [non-traditional in the sense that it is not academic in tone at all] for a delightful evening class on art that meets once a week, and during which we see many slides while discussing the salient points of each chapter. (And then we break for wine and cheese and fruit, artfully arranged on a tilting table….)

Rating: 4/5 (I would have rated it higher had there been more illustrations, although in truth, there would have had to have been so many, it would have trebled the size and cost of the book. Maybe it would make a better online book, with hypertext links….?)

Highly recommended!

[Yurii Samusenko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Буду відвертим, як і автор цього нон-фікшену – мистецтво лякає, захоплює, стимулює, розвиває і часом робить всі протилежні один до одного речі водночас. Розібратися у складному механізмі сучасного мистецтва – справа не з легких. Але спробувати варто. Наприклад, у форматі стендапу.

Гомпертц спершу прокатав свій матеріал як one-man-show на фестивалі "Фріндж" в Единбурзі, а потім накатав видавництву Penguin майже 500 сторінок оповідок та байок про митців. Доведеться зробити ліричний відступ, бо ця книга – ідеальна.

Скільки б Ден Браун не ганяв своїх героїв по музеях, у нього ніколи б не вийшло написати таке захопливе чтиво. Вілл Гомпертц користується всіма ресурсами знань, власної кмітливості та суперечливих думок, аби скласти в один пазл історію довжиною у 150 років.

Центральною фігурою оповіді вибрав Марселя Дюшана, який зі своїм "Пісуаром" поставив чимало питань у мистецьких (та далеко за їхніми межами) колах. І вся ця машина під назвою "Що це взагалі таке?" працює навколо Дюшана, бо автор випробовує читача, свої погляди та теорії знавців.

Хотів знайти якісь недоліки і не можу. Давно хотілося вчепитися зубами за цікаву літературу про мистецтво і не знав, з чого почати. Гомпертц, як кваліфікований вчитель, м'яко бере тебе за руку та водить залами музеїв крізь історії людей. І найголовніше – не скаже тобі, що протягом всіх 475 сторінок у тебе був відкритий рот.

[Nigeyb · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are curious about Modern Art, and seek an entertaining, amusing, and succinct introduction to the developments of the last 150 years then you should read What Are You Looking At?: 150 Years of Modern Art in a Nutshell.

Will Gompertz is the perfect guide. Playful and humorous whilst also wearing his considerable knowledge lightly.

What Are You Looking At?: 150 Years of Modern Art in a Nutshell reads more like a novel than a non fiction work.

I learnt a lot whilst being entertained.

What more can a reader ask for?

Highly recommended

5/5

[Carlex · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that explains in an entertaining and at the same time sufficiently exhaustive way the "mystery" of modern art. What more could you want?

[Ellie Connors · Rating 4 out of 5]

im starting a job at an art museum and i’ve never taken an art history class, so i went to the library and just looked for any book about modern art and found this one!! i really loved it i actually found it to be a good level of depth/challenge while still being super accessible, i never felt talked down to or in over my head

[Petruccio Hambasket IV · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basically a "Modern Art For Dummies" (like me). Entirely unpretentious in tone and form; I learned very much from this easy reading book. On the back cover it says that Gompertz is the world's first self proclaimed "art-history stand-up comedian". After reading that I thought that maybe this book would be too digressive, structurally disjointed, and perhaps even unlearned: which all seemed unappealing to me at the time, since I was looking to find a more comprehensive survey. My fears were extinguished nearly from the start.

Sure, Gompertz does use a casually jokey and light hearted approach in his writing, but it's not overdone, and he has a real knack for explaining concepts in a way that is extremely easy to understand. He readily acknowledges the fact that this is not an academic work of history and admits he could pull no such thing off. Even so, his approach to artists, movements, and certain unique incidents is always concisely presented and informative. He separates the movements chronologically by chapter, and his chapter progressions are tied in nicely with each other. For a book who's task is to talk about paintings it's obviously important to have pictures of the stuff your discussing included. Gompertz for the most part does this well. He includes 29 colour plates separated into its own corner of the book, these are the most important images he wishes to show. Other than this he occasionally sprinkles black and white figures throughout the pages if they're necessary to see or if their just too hard to describe verbally (and he does this quite a bit), for the rest of the time you're probably gonna have to hop back-and-forth between his descriptions and Google to get the full picture.

Overall, a very enjoyable and informatively constructed introduction to Modern art (and even a little Contemporary) if you're in the market for such a book. If it didn't have as many jokes within I could see this being used a college textbook.

[Fran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Más allá de la portada y contraportada un poco engañosas, que buscan llamar la atención y que suenan a la verborrea de un buhonero intentando vender una pócima de amor, el libro es una síntesis didáctica y muy amena de la historia del arte de los últimos 150 años.

No me extraña su éxito. Quizá el truco se encuentre en el estilo desenfadado y desacomplejado de Will Gompertz, alejado del lenguaje académico del arte y en el que la personalidad del autor deja rastro en cada frase. En este sentido, el autor es un profesor extraordinario, explica todo con sencillez y cercanía, sin condescendencia y sin hacer sentir al lector como un zoquete.

Además, el libro abre el apetito como pocos. De hecho, ya metidos en faena, no me hubiera importado que durase otras 500 páginas.

El mayor problema es el escaso número de ilustraciones. Tiene fácil solución —Google—, pero incomoda bastante la lectura.

[Olga · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Сьогоднішнє мистецтво уособлює цей світ. Тепер воно, як ніколи, комерціалізоване. У ХХІ столітті митці не вмирають з голоду на горищі.Натомість, вони стали мультимільйонерами і мандрують світом, рекламуючи себе й свої роботи на тих чи тих бієнале в оточенні прес-секрктарів і піар-менеджерів." Художники перевелися?

[Leo Robertson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great light introduction to modern art. Compact and delivered with humour.

A bit like a hundred or so pamphlets that you'd pick up at a museum, all weaved together. Given this ambition, don't expect too much depth: it's clearly aimed at laymen like myself who want to give their jaw the capacity to drop a few mm more during their next art gallery visit.

On a different note: tell me these aren't art!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn9lX...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-S0T...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVHZ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUnVL...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BX6T0zQCE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-CFE...
https://archive.org/details/ubu-abram...

[Mesia Loriana · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 for the information, but 3 for trying to be funny

[Dvora Treisman · Rating 2 out of 5]

As far as I'm concerned, this started out much better than it ended. That goes for this book and for art movements of the last 100 years.

I found it interesting his explanation of how Degas differed from the other impressionists. He did not work rapidly, he preferred the studio to plein air, and while the others were focused on ever-changing light, his focus was on the illusion of movement. He also was an outstanding draftsman, which the others were not.

I knew that about this time, art dealers began to become more important making the all-important salon less so for the sale of art works, but Gompertz explains this in more detail. Paul Durand-Ruel was key to the continued work of the impressionists and instrumental to the evolving role of art dealers and galleries. I read a lot about art history and artists, but I've never seen such a short and clear explanation of this change in the business of art.

Gompertz gives a short biography of Vincent van Gogh and then tells about his work. I thought it unfortunate that within that very brief bio, he insisted on the myth that Vincent shot himself when Steven Naifeh and Gregory White's biography of Vincent made a very convincing argument for the fact that he was shot by someone else and that biography was published a year before this book.

A good discussion of Cezanne where he makes clear how important he was and how much other artists valued him.

I was disappointed to see that Gompertz left out Catalan (Spanish) art nouveau. He mentions France (Art Nouveau), Germany (Jugendstil), Austria (Vienna Secessionist). And Spain? Catalonia had an active decorative art movement called Modernism. There were painters, and more famously, there was the architect Antoni Gaudi whose Sagrada Familia and Parc Guell most people have heard of, even if Gompertz hasn't.

I appreciated the observation about Matisse, "...his ability to make a simple mark on canvas that makes an immediate and memorable connection with the viewer elevates him from the good painter to the great artist. The balancing effect of his contrasting shapes, and the coherence of his compositions have been matched by very few artists in the history of painting."

I won’t go into all the contemporary artists (of the last 50 or so years). Just Tracey Emin. Among other of her works, Gompertz talks about My Bed (pg. 382) and describes it as "just that: Tracey Emin's bed, unmade, and dishevelled with stained sheets. It was surrounded on the floor by the detritus of her life: empty bottles of booze, cigarette-ends and dirty underwear."

He goes on to say that "Tracey Emin's unmade bed 'made' her. She became notorious, a love-to-hate character for the media, which she manipulated expertly, becoming very rich and very famous along the way."

Thankfully, I never heard of her until now. On the back cover of my copy it says, in glowing affirmation of this book, that it "explains why Tracey Emin's unmade bed is a work of art, and why yours is not." I beg to differ. Mine is better because (1) I make my bed each morning, and (2) my dirty underwear is hidden away.

In a very poor argument, Gompertz says that "a lot of people knock Tracey Emin, say she is a fraud. History will judge the quality of her art, but she is not a fraud. She has a first class degree from Maidstone College of Art and an MA from the Royal College of Art. Her work can be found in the collections of the world's most illustrious modern art museums (MoMA, Pompidou, Tate); etc.

Well, la dee dah. How sad to resort to making your point by begging the question. The Impressionists had to hold their own exhibition because the establishment didn't like their work. Vincent van Gogh only managed to sell one painting in his lifetime. The art establishment can be wrong either way. The argument for Emin, with her art degrees and acceptance by the Tate doesn't prove a thing. What Gompertz has convinced me of is that art has become a commodity and the art establishment the center of a big business.

[Sarthak Pranit · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am an art novice. And, trust me, even that is an overstatement.

Being educated since birth in the sciences as an Indian kid you often lose touch with that side of yours which could possibly be beyond equations. And the slowly murdering bitch that time is, I just let go a desire to even appreciate or bother myself with the question 'Is this art?'.

After moving to Amsterdam, my inquisitiveness about art remained superficial despite having all of Europe's art at disposal to look at, contemplate, tilt head - left and right, think, diss/admire. But recently I went on a weekend trip with one of my friends who has had her education in the arts and has a passion for it. After a few discussions, I believe she realised that I want to learn about art, but I just didn't know where to start. As a result, she recommended me this book. And boy did she nail it.

This book is like the art parallel of 'A short history of nearly everything' or 'Sapiens'. It's the 'summary about art' book we both deserve and need. But the reasons why I liked it were pretty personal....... as art is (whaaaaaaaaa).

- It's actually funny. Art for me often used to conjure up images of men and women dressed in eye blinding white with wine glasses in all of their 13 hands whispering things to each other in a low voice as if they were cautious about spilling out the secrets of the greatest orgasm to basal folks like me. But this book took a new angle and tried to make the origin story available for the 'proletariat'.

- It's chronologically sensible. This book starts with Marcel Duchamp and ends with Banksy. There is a timeline of reasoning that the author derives while meandering through the whole lot of Impressionism, Cubism, Minimalism, Post-modernism and the historical innovations hitching them together.

- IT'S SENSIBLE. This perhaps is the biggest win of this book for me. It dejargonized art for me. The author literally combined history with art and made it fun for me. For this feat alone, a special place in heaven should be designed for the writer - that land slot beside the one Bill Bryson shall move into.

For anyone who has deeply pondered over questions like 'Dafuq is that? Why is it art? What is art? Am I art? Is a tart art?', reading this book will involve a lot of 'Oh! That's why!' moments. So enjoy :)

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have spent a lot of my professional life working with modern art. I have the stories to go along with it - riding a Rothko down on top of a billionaire's freight elevator, meticulously drawing sketches of 76 Tracey Emin polaroids to show if they have any scratches, taking the glass off a couple of Francis Bacon paintings, I could go on. I'm the person that will try to convince a friend that Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is in fact genius, but is also a joke.
Even with all that experience, Will Gompertz's survey of art history from the mid 19th century until (almost) today was full of interesting facts, connections among movements, and a bit of humor. This is the kind of book that is really aimed at those skeptical of modern art, but willing to put in a little work to try to understand it, even if they don't like it. He does an excellent job of it. I already have one friend I'd love to give it to.
My biggest BIGGEST criticism is the almost nearly entire exclusion of women. He even makes a comment about the erasure of women from art history, with a few outliers, but is just as guilty of that exclusion himself. While he talks about the boys clubs of Abstract Expressionism, early American Modernism, Minimalism, etc, there were no mentions of Grace Hartigan, Sonia Delaunay, Eliane DeKooning, Helen Frankenthaler, Lee Krasner, Agnes Martin, Joan Mitchell, or even Georgia O'Keeffe. Why talk about the exclusion of women, without an attempt to help correct that? It irked me.
I am really excited to take my young niece to MOMA for the first time next week, and this book was an excellent refresher of the interesting interconnected stories that make up modern art history.

[Kamakana · Rating 5 out of 5]

if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com

270615: well it is not necessarily five, this fits it on favoritenonfiction, but as general, intelligent, not hermetic, not specialist, introduction to art history of the modern era. so the appreciation is on the same level as intro philosophical texts: this makes you want to read on, want to see the works. and of course, there are the limitations of the media. two-dimensional visual art mostly, in small plates, small images, some art more recent being conceptual, performance, multimedia, sculpture, but this requires much description, much that shows the work of art is already in the best form to express itself, and prose description only shows what is lost. i happen to like abstract expressionists, pop art, minimalism- and mirrors, lots of mirrors. biased to english contemporary work. written in accessible terms, biographical focusing, rather than just ideas, becoming narrative linkage of 'the story of modern art'... maybe you have to already have read, seen, heard arguments, of the works and artists noted... encouraging, open, fun. but then my idea of 'fun' is four hundred pages of art history, so caution is advised...

[AM · Rating 3 out of 5]

So many pieces of artwork are referenced in this book that I need to read it with Google to look them up. It would have been great if copies of them were included in the book.

[Alina Rozhkova · Rating 3 out of 5]

Пока решила не дочитывать, может позже.

Читать книгу было постоянно некомфортно. Может это проблема вёрстки украинского издания, но чёрт, как же неудобно постоянно дергаться. Некоторые картины вставлены слишком рано, некоторые слишком поздно. К вставленным картинам обращаются не по порядку (например, сначала картина 17, потом картина 16, ну за что вы так с моим ОКР?). Про некоторые картины много говорится, но они не вставлены, нужно идти гуглить, и так по три раза за страницу. Некоторые картины вставлены черно-белыми посреди текста, хотя в тексте описывается их цвет, и как он важен (и в книге есть отдельное место с цветными картинами, ну вставили бы туда уже, ну серьезно). Кроме авторских иллюстраций в этом издании есть, как я поняла, иллюстрации дизайнера из украинского издательства, и мне они показались странными и часто не к месту вставленными в рандомных местах.

Кроме верстки еще мне лично некомфортно было читать авторское мнение типа "ось ця картина - симпатично, але безглуздо, трохи недолуго, але он та картина - очевидний прорив, вдало і тонко". Мне бы хотелось какого-то уважительного отношения ко всем картинам, что-ли, особенно если ты пишешь про современное искусство, и пытаешься доказать читателю, что даже цветные квадраты и наляпистые линии достойны уважения (а собаки с ногами-колёсами почему нет тогда?).

Расстроена, потому что давно горела желанием её купить и прочитать, летала вся такая вдохновлённая, а в итоге осталась очень разочарована.

[Valeriia Arnaud · Rating 5 out of 5]

Непросто, але дуже цікаво.
Шкодую, що не виділила на неї більше часу - розділ на тиждень, і тиждень присвячувати додатковому рісьорчу по кожному стилю та художнику. Але я й так наче непогано бустанула свої знання в сфері сучасного мистецтва, принаймні Фонтан Дюшама більше не здається таким вже знущанням над глядачами.

[Caroline Kleiner · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book was helpful in making sense of the many modern art movements, I noticed that the perspective slants towards Western Europe and America, mainly white artists and male artists, or both. There is also a lot of detail for each piece, which is great, but without accompanying images, it can feel like a lot to process. The organization of the chapters was also a bit repetitive. However, I did learn a lot and the book was very approachable.

[Benoit Lelièvre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not only this book is exactly what it claims to be : a history of modern art, but it also helps to establish parallels between what art was then and what art is now.

Because the way art works today is influenced by the first ever artistic revolution. What Are You Looking At? is mostly a history of painting because it's the first art form to ever be institutionalized and taught in academies, which is an important aspect of the book. There was a certain way artists were taught to paint because at one time in history, painting was a technical skill. When you didn't have cameras to take photos, you needed a specialized worker to capture your essence in visual form. Not everyone could do it. But like everything stuck in academia, it went on for way too long and at some point, young artists called them out on it. The impressionists lived in the era of early photographs and didn't want to offer just an equivalent. They wanted to paint what they perceived and not necessarily what was just there. They would blaze the path for everyone.

Will Gompertz traces the legacy from impressionists to performance art, but it really is broader than that. It applies to every art form. Take pop music for exemple. Boys bands from the 90s were a corporate response to the monsters of the eighties (Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna, etc.) The industry thought they could systematize the success and they kind of did. But the kids reappropriated themselves the music and pop became indie again. Billie Eilish, Lorde, Harry Styles, etc. Transformations were caused by social and technological changes, which lead to different art forms. That is what the lessons from Will Gompertz are. Modern artists were just like our celebrities before our time.

[Katia Leliukh · Rating 5 out of 5]

«Незрозуміле мистецтво. Від Моне до Бенксі» Віла Гомперца – це такий екскурс для нечайників і тих, хто хоче зрозуміти, чому ми всі часом почуваємося м’яко кажучи не дуже розумними у просторах, де демонструються роботи визнаних митців сучасності; чому «Квадрат» Малевича – шедевр, а ваші квіти, які зайняли друге місце у конкурсі шкільних малюнків – ні; якими були історичні та філософські передумови для виникнення мистецьких течій і рухів; що взагалі коїться і куди котиться сучасний віжуал арт; чому покупці Sotheby's – не завжди психи, яким нема куди викидати гроші та багато захопливого іншого. Автор охопив доволі значний часовий проміжок, але при цьому гріх буде сказати, що фактажу було замало для конкретно такого формату. Манера викладу проста, оповідальна, місцями навіть гумористична і найголовніше – позбавлена музейної запиленості, часто характерної для мови істориків мистецтв. Гомперц, до речі, після виходу книжки увійшов до списку найкреативніших людей якогось відомого журналу, що, як по мені, дуже вельми заслужено.

Загалом, сміливо ставлю 5 з 5 зірочок.