This book made me angry enough to make a GoodReads account to review it so that's what I'm gonna do. Jesse Bryant Wilder, I have a bone to pick with you. CW for mentions of sexual assault.
Let me start off by saying that this book is, for the most part, a pretty good overview of most of the art periods and movements across the timeline of mankind. I purchased this book to study for a certification exam, and read it cover-to-cover. I found the little asides and anecdotes very helpful and informative, and the author gives the appropriate parallel historical context for each movement/period as time goes on. I would have liked more references to more individual works instead of limiting the information to "the most famous artists" for each period/movement and those artists' "most famous" works, but I digress.
Again, this book is a great overview of a great bulk of art history, and I learned a lot. However, (and this is my main issue) this book is extremely Western-centric (re: Eurocentric), so much so that there is virtually no mention of anything east of Mesopotamia beyond the phrase, "oriental influences" when discussing early Greek (Mycenaean) artwork. There's also basically nothing on any art south of Egypt. No South American/Latin American art, either (except for a small section that briefly discusses Frida Kahlo.) So... what gives, Jesse? Was there just nothing going on art-wise in Africa? Asia? In Japan? Where's the section that talks about the Edo period's woodblock prints? Their folding-screen paintings? Hmm? Answer: there isn't one. This book worships the ground that the Renaissance artists walked upon, but barely bats an eye that there could be art that exists outside of the legacy (artistic canon) that it created. Which, okay, sure. I get it. But you will never convince me that The Great Wave off Kanagawa isn't just as iconic as the Mona Lisa. Oh, and don't think for a second that I'm letting you off the hook for African art just because you mentioned that it influenced Cubism in chapter 22.
Moving on, my other issue with this book is that it reduces the few female artists throughout history to little more than delicate, emotional artists, who created at the mercy of the men in their lives. They each get a few sentences of information about how they mostly painted other women and children, and how many of them gave up painting to raise families, because gender roles. Which, again, I get. After all, there is a reason the famous Linda Nochlin once asked, "Why have there been no great women artists?" The answer is that there weren't really any for a long time. I guess. No one talks about them. I certainly didn't learn that any of them existed until I reached college. Which is why, when I saw artists like Artemisia Gentileschi and Mary Cassatt mentioned in this book, I was pleasantly surprised. My hopes were quickly dashed, however, because most of what was written about them was little more than a reminder that they were either discouraged from painting or, in Gentileschi's case, sexually assaulted. I'm not exaggerating when I say that there is LITERALLY one whole paragraph about Artemisia Gentileschi, and that is generous compared to some of the other women artists. Her section is exactly 9 sentences long. 4 of them talk about how she was raped, and the emotional fallout which inspired some of her paintings. Do with that what you will.
Finally, I want to say that I don't hate this book. In fact, I liked a good bit of it and I think it was very well-researched. I just think it carries an unusually large amount of bias in favor of Western art and art history, and does not live up to its flashy cover-page descriptor: "the fun and easy way to brush up on art through the ages." Well, my guy, there was more going on throughout the ages than just Italians painting barenaked ladies. I'm not saying the Renaissance wasn't important, I'm just asking for you to expand your horizons, because when I search for a book that claims to have a global account of art history, I expect said account to be, y'know... Global.
TL;DR: This book should be called American and European Art History For Dummies, because that's basically all it is.