What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Colleges and universities used to teach art history to encourage connoisseurship and acquaint students with the riches of our artistic heritage. But now, as Roger Kimball reveals in this witty and provocative book, the student is less likely to learn about the aesthetics of masterworks than to be told, for instance, that Peter Paul Rubens' great painting Drunken Silenus is an allegory about anal rape. Or that Courbet's famous hunting pictures are psychodramas about "castration anxiety." Or that Gauguin's Manao tupapau is an example of the way repression is "written on the bodies of women." Or that Jan van Eyck's masterful Arnolfini Portrait is about "middle-class deceptions ... and the treatment of women." Or that Mark Rothko's abstract White Band (Number 27) "parallels the pictorial structure of a pieta." Or that Winslow Homer's The Gulf Stream is "a visual encoding of racism."
In The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Kimball, a noted art critic himself, shows how academic art history is increasingly held hostage to radical cultural politics - feminism, cultural studies, postcolonial studies, the whole armory of academic antihumanism. To make his point, he describes how eight famous works of art (reprinted here as illustrations) have been made over to fit a radical ideological fantasy. Kimball then performs a series of intellectual rescue operations, explaining how these great works should be understood through a series of illuminating readings in which art, not politics, guides the discussion.
The Rape of the Masters exposes the charlatanry that fuels much academic art history and leaks into the art world generally, affecting galleries, museums and catalogues. It also provides an engaging antidote to the tendentious, politically motivated assaults on our treasured sources of culture and civilization.
In The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Kimball, a noted art critic himself, shows how academic art history is increasingly held hostage to radical cultural politics - feminism, cultural studies, postcolonial studies, the whole armory of academic antihumanism. To make his point, he describes how eight famous works of art (reprinted here as illustrations) have been made over to fit a radical ideological fantasy. Kimball then performs a series of intellectual rescue operations, explaining how these great works should be understood through a series of illuminating readings in which art, not politics, guides the discussion.
The Rape of the Masters exposes the charlatanry that fuels much academic art history and leaks into the art world generally, affecting galleries, museums and catalogues. It also provides an engaging antidote to the tendentious, politically motivated assaults on our treasured sources of culture and civilization.
200 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2003
About the author
Roger Kimball
81 books64 followersAmerican art critic and social commentator. He was educated at Cheverus High School, a Jesuit institution in South Portland, Maine, and then at Bennington College, where he received his BA in philosophy and classical Greek, and at Yale University. He first gained prominence in the early 1990s with the publication of his book, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Higher Education.
Additionally, he is editor and publisher of The New Criterion magazine and the publisher of Encounter Books. He currently serves on the board of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the board of Transaction Publishers and as a Visitor of Ralston College, a start-up liberal arts college based in Savannah, Georgia. He also served on the Board of Visitors of St. John's College (Annapolis and Santa Fe). His latest book, The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia, was published by St. Augustine's Press in June of 2012.
Additionally, he is editor and publisher of The New Criterion magazine and the publisher of Encounter Books. He currently serves on the board of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the board of Transaction Publishers and as a Visitor of Ralston College, a start-up liberal arts college based in Savannah, Georgia. He also served on the Board of Visitors of St. John's College (Annapolis and Santa Fe). His latest book, The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia, was published by St. Augustine's Press in June of 2012.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
January 10, 2019
Roger Kimball's stringent condemnation of contemporary art criticism. The Rape of the Masters is essentially a series of notes on the pathological subordination of art to sociopolitical agenda by the academic art establishment. The particulars of the disease involve: (1) aggrandizement of the spurious or trivial and, (2) the de(con)struction of traditional aesthetics. Kimball claims that the act of observation and historical analysis is being replaced by walls of structural text on which charlatans hang their inane theoretical baggage.
The Rape of the Masters is divided into seven exhibits of abhorrent abuse toward important works of art. Some particularly egregious highlights (lowlights?) include: David Lubin's Freudian castration fantasies and penile-alphabetic representation within Sargeant's "The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit", Griselda Pollack's feminist diktat of racist fetishization in Gauguin's "Manao tupapau", and Svetlana Alpers' trendy shift from Marxist commodification rhetoric to implications of gender-confusion in Ruben's "Drunken Silenus."
Thus we are introduced to nearly-numerological sermons posing as art history. All of this could perhaps be treated as a humorous aside if not for the fact that it has become a predominant method of analysis in classrooms, museums, and the press. Kimball's humble motives, as stated in the final two paragraphs of the epilogue, are admirable: "Although The Rape of the Masters is hostile to the depredations practiced by criticism upon art, it aims at the same time to encourage the beneficent, pleasurable, civilizing elements that have traditionally been accorded to our encounters with good art. In one sense, this is a notably modest ambition, since it often happens that the most a critic can do is to remove the clutter impeding the direct enjoyment of art. True, that clutter sometimes includes the degrees of ignorance or insensitivity, and in this respect art critics and art historians can provide useful guideposts that make it easier to see the work for what it is. But at bottom, their function is a humble one: to clear away the underbrush that obscures the first hand apprehension of works of art. Of course, this modest task has an ambitious corollary motive, namely to help restore art to its proper place in the economy of cultural life: as a source of aesthetic delectation and spiritual refreshment."
The Rape of the Masters is divided into seven exhibits of abhorrent abuse toward important works of art. Some particularly egregious highlights (lowlights?) include: David Lubin's Freudian castration fantasies and penile-alphabetic representation within Sargeant's "The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit", Griselda Pollack's feminist diktat of racist fetishization in Gauguin's "Manao tupapau", and Svetlana Alpers' trendy shift from Marxist commodification rhetoric to implications of gender-confusion in Ruben's "Drunken Silenus."
Thus we are introduced to nearly-numerological sermons posing as art history. All of this could perhaps be treated as a humorous aside if not for the fact that it has become a predominant method of analysis in classrooms, museums, and the press. Kimball's humble motives, as stated in the final two paragraphs of the epilogue, are admirable: "Although The Rape of the Masters is hostile to the depredations practiced by criticism upon art, it aims at the same time to encourage the beneficent, pleasurable, civilizing elements that have traditionally been accorded to our encounters with good art. In one sense, this is a notably modest ambition, since it often happens that the most a critic can do is to remove the clutter impeding the direct enjoyment of art. True, that clutter sometimes includes the degrees of ignorance or insensitivity, and in this respect art critics and art historians can provide useful guideposts that make it easier to see the work for what it is. But at bottom, their function is a humble one: to clear away the underbrush that obscures the first hand apprehension of works of art. Of course, this modest task has an ambitious corollary motive, namely to help restore art to its proper place in the economy of cultural life: as a source of aesthetic delectation and spiritual refreshment."
February 26, 2025
This book was published 20 years ago, well before the climax of wokist madness.
Here's a short summary with the help of our friend Chat:
"Kimball introduces his central argument: modern art criticism has been hijacked by political correctness, focusing on ideology rather than artistic value. He describes how scholars use Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, and postcolonial theory to “reinterpret” classic works, often distorting their original meaning.
The title “rape” is metaphorical—Kimball argues that critics are violating the integrity of masterpieces by forcing political readings onto them.
Kimball closes the book by emphasizing the importance of preserving genuine art appreciation.
He calls for a return to traditional criticism that respects artistic intent and formal qualities.
He warns that if ideological criticism continues to dominate, the true value of art could be lost to political agendas.
Kimball’s book is a passionate defense of traditional art criticism against modern ideological trends. He believes that classic works should be studied for their aesthetic and historical importance rather than reduced to contemporary political debates. His critique is controversial but raises important questions about the role of ideology in academia."
If you ever feel like getting a degree in art history, please do the right thing: do no give in to ideology but pursue to uncover the true value of art.
Here's a short summary with the help of our friend Chat:
"Kimball introduces his central argument: modern art criticism has been hijacked by political correctness, focusing on ideology rather than artistic value. He describes how scholars use Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, and postcolonial theory to “reinterpret” classic works, often distorting their original meaning.
The title “rape” is metaphorical—Kimball argues that critics are violating the integrity of masterpieces by forcing political readings onto them.
Kimball closes the book by emphasizing the importance of preserving genuine art appreciation.
He calls for a return to traditional criticism that respects artistic intent and formal qualities.
He warns that if ideological criticism continues to dominate, the true value of art could be lost to political agendas.
Kimball’s book is a passionate defense of traditional art criticism against modern ideological trends. He believes that classic works should be studied for their aesthetic and historical importance rather than reduced to contemporary political debates. His critique is controversial but raises important questions about the role of ideology in academia."
If you ever feel like getting a degree in art history, please do the right thing: do no give in to ideology but pursue to uncover the true value of art.
December 29, 2008
in the twentieth century, art became political. ideas of quality and beauty were abandoned. the only thing that mattered was if a piece furthered an agenda. as the ideologies became more pointless and illogical, art struggled to keep up.
this is bad enough, but now these new nihilistic ideas of art criticism are being applied retroactively as far back as the renaissance.
kimball collects some of these more... insane reviews.
as funny as it is, these people are the reason "fine artist" has become an insult.
this is bad enough, but now these new nihilistic ideas of art criticism are being applied retroactively as far back as the renaissance.
kimball collects some of these more... insane reviews.
as funny as it is, these people are the reason "fine artist" has become an insult.
Currently Reading
July 28, 2007Tis is the first and only time i have ever laughed reading an art history book! Kimball has such an amazing approach to loooking at art and calling his fellow art historians out on their bs! Read it! You'll love it!
October 31, 2012
Este libro merece un comentario largo. Sobre todo por respeto al propio autor, ya que se trata de un libro, ante todo, polémico. Da lucha abiertamente a una corriente de estudios académicos y trapea el suelo con ciertos textos, con nombres y apellidos.
Empezando por el título, empezamos mal. "La profanación del arte: de como la corrección política sabotea el arte" o en inglés simplemente "The Rape of the Masters". De los siete capítulos del libro, dedicados a siete críticas de "maestros" de la pintura, únicamente tres tienen que ver claramente con la "corrección política": 1) "Hacer de Sargent una fantasía", 2) "Modernizar a Winslow Homer" y 3) "Fetichizar a Gaugin". Con cierta dificultad podríamos introducir ahí el capítulo IV, "Embriagar a Rubens". Por lo tanto, dudo mucho que como pretende ver el autor, esta exageración y pseudointerpretación de las obras artísticas que señala con mayor o menor tino, según el caso, no tienen que ver con una "corrección política" sino con otra cosa.
El único mérito que encontré en este libro fue el de señalar, a veces con sobrada ironía, antes bien que con una crítica sólida y decidida, el pésimo quehacer de las instituciones, academias y editores que publican salvajes tonterías.
Claro que hay ejemplos en este libro que destacan por su impresionante arrojo. Particularmente el capítulo "Hacer de Sargent una fantasía", en donde el porf. Lubin nos habla de sobre la letra "s" (letra con la que comienza la palabra "sperm" y que a su vez tiene forma de esperma, al suprimirse en el acento circunflejo del francés y empalmarse sobre la letra "i" esta queda necesariamente preñada), o de semejanzas fonéticas y psicoanalíticas de muy diversa índole. Realmente es un capítulo memorable, sin duda.
Ahora bien, la idea de Kimball respecto a la "Historia del arte" es muy clara: desbrozar la mirada del espectador ante un cuadro de un gran maestro. (Cabe preguntarse si lo que quería hacer, por ejemplo, Heidegger o Derrida al comentar a Van Gogh fuera la de escribir algo parecido a una Historia del arte, fuera del corte que fuera). Pero esa es una idea, hasta cierto punto, bastante corta. Museística, turistera, chafa en una palabra.
El arte no es únicamente un hecho museístico para el recreo del placer estético. ¿Será por eso que el Sr. Kimball solo habla de arte que sigue siendo, hasta un cierto punto, clásico? Como Rubens, Gaugin, Van Gogh, Curbet... incluso, con ciertas dificultades y reservas, se lanza sobre Rothko, pero muy probablemente sabe que ir más allá es ir a dar al traste con la idea de lo que él se refiera como arte.
Es decir, ¿qué haremos con los muralistas mexicanos que abiertamente fueron políticos? ¿Qué haremos con el arte conceptual que a veces ni siquiera presenta una obra a los sentidos para que se deliten? ¿Qué se hará con las pinturas de Lascaux o Altamira cuyo propósito, muy probablemente, no era el deleite estético de los hombres de las cavernas? ¿Qué se hará con todo el arte religioso que lo que pretendería sería más bien inspirar constricción y virtud en quienes lo vieran? Más bien pareciera que este fenómeno estético del museo y la contemplación pareciera una cosa tan absolutamente moderna, que no cumple ni los 200 años de vida, en contra de los miles y miles de años que lleva el arte por ahí, pululando. Cabe recordar que hasta la fecha, ni siquiera se ha podido llevar a cabo un catálogo extenso y minucioso de la pinacoteca del Museo del Prado: ¡tan poco es el tiempo que se lleva pensando que el arte solo sirve para ser visto!
Muy bien, sentado esto, cualquiera que tenga sentido común, admitiría que la mayoría de las declaraciones del señor Kimball en lo que respecta a ciertos críticos son atinadas, aunque de dudoso gusto. Sobre todo en lo que respecta al capítulos I, III, IV y V. Hay material de donde cortar, no cabe duda. En los capítulos II, VI y VII, la cosa por lo menos a mí no me queda tan clara. Toda vez que el señor Kimball escogerá con sumo cuidado las citas y textos que incluye de los libros de tal manera que muestren los pasajes más cuestionables. Mejor sería, en tales casos, leer con detenimiento los textos en cuestión.
Me explico: En el capítulo II, "Inventar a Mark Rothko", si bien podemos admitir que decir que sus pinturas más emblemáticas tienen la estrucutra de una pietá es una cosa bastante cuestionable, no es menos extraño el hecho de que Rothko siempre haya insistido en separarse de la etiqueta de "abstracto". ¿Qué pasa aquí? ¿Acaso Rothko no sabía ni lo que pintaba? ¿No es ese el mismo argumento que usa el señor Kimball para arrojar estiércol sobre las palabras del profesor Fired sobre Curbet? Decir que Curbet no sabía lo que hacía cuando pintaba parece despectivo, ¿no? Pues lo mismo me parece decir que Rothko no sabía lo que decía cuando insistía en decir que él era un pintor realista. Si lo dice Rothko, por lo menos hay que tomar un poco en serio la declaración.
En el capítulo VI, "Fetichizar a Gauguin", nos encontramos ante la profesora Griselda Pollock que habla sobre el eurocentrismo, machismo y el simulacro en la pintura salvaje de Gauguin. Sin entrar en valoraciones sobre el trabajo de Pollock, algo que no he leído y probablemente nunca haga, lo cierto es que hay que recordar que en la medida en que el arte sea tomado de una manera distinta al objeto de estudio al que pretende reducirlo Kimball, las producciones sobre él serán completamente distintas. El enfoque es lo que acaba determinando si lo que tenemos es una guía para el Salon des Refusés o un intento de estudio, mejor o peor logrado, de una parte de la cultura o la sociedad.
Finalmente, merece un comentario más largo el capítulo VII, "Revelar a Van Gogh", y lo merece porque en este caso conozco de primera mano (y bastante recientemente por lo demás), la conferencia que comenta el señor Kimball de Heidegger en la que comenta de paso a Van Gogh. Hay que ser claro y decir que El orígen de la obra de arte, no es un estudio sobre Van Gogh, ni mucho menos una historia del arte. Si forzamos un poco las cosas, podemos llegar a decir que se trata de un ensayito relacionado con temas estéticos. Ni siquiera diría que es un ensayo sobre estética. Porque no habla ni de lo bello, ni lo bonito. Es un ensayo de ontología que intenta ver en el arte una ventana a la revelación del ser de las cosas. (Oiga, usted puede perfectamente estar en desacuerdo, yo lo estoy). Pero no tiene nada que ver con una visión objetiva e histórica sobre Van Gogh ni ningún otro artista. Si Heidegger toma a Van Gogh lo hace porque le sale al paso y nada más. Van Gogh es un ejemplo, como lo toma también de Hölderlin o poetas clásicos grecolatinos. Podemos pasar horas discutiendo sobre las implicaciones de la ontología estética de Heidegger, pero detenernos a hablar sobre Van Gogh en Hediegger es no ver el bosque por centrarse en una brizna de hierba. (Por otro lado, ¿alguien leería a Heidegger buscando desbrozar su mirada sobre un Van Gogh?)...
Como digo, solo conozco este texto claramente y lo veo descontextualizado, quiero confiar en que el señor Kimball no ha hecho lo mismo con el resto de críticas, pero... en fin. Es un libro de fácil lectura, lo cual hay gente que eso le gusta, creí que por lo menos sería enriquecedor o daría puntos de vista interesantes y polémicos, pero realmente no. En los puntos más interesantes y cruciales, -función del arte, características de la apreciación y contemplación, razones estructurales de la degeneración de la crítica de arte, deriva del arte contemporáneo- Kimball decide no mojarse ni intervenir. Se dedica simplemente a decir que el arte es para la contemplación y deleite estético. También y ya que tenía un ánimo belicoso este libro, se hecho más en falta una buena crítica a las instituciones y editores que lanzaban estos libros, un estudio, aunque fuese, más a profundidad de este monstruo superdesarrollado de los estudios culturales.
En cuanto a la edición de FCE, la verdad es que hay que preguntarse: ¿por qué ha sido editado de esta manera? ¿Por qué en un breviario una obra tan sin chiste ni gracia? ¡Y por qué, si ya decidieron editarlo, lo hacen tan mal! No soy amigo del sistema de citas del MLA. Siempre he preferido, ante cualquier cosa, el sistema de citas de notas a pie de página. Sé que los criterios editoriales van cambiando a hacer un libro lo más pulcro posible... y entiendo hasta que punto para ellos son útiles las citas con formato MLA, pero en este libro no se aplica ni un modelo ni otro, sino ese engorroso y chafo sistema de notas al final del libro. Es lo peor que se puede hacer a la hora de seleccionar un sistema para acomodar notas y citas. Nefasto.
Empezando por el título, empezamos mal. "La profanación del arte: de como la corrección política sabotea el arte" o en inglés simplemente "The Rape of the Masters". De los siete capítulos del libro, dedicados a siete críticas de "maestros" de la pintura, únicamente tres tienen que ver claramente con la "corrección política": 1) "Hacer de Sargent una fantasía", 2) "Modernizar a Winslow Homer" y 3) "Fetichizar a Gaugin". Con cierta dificultad podríamos introducir ahí el capítulo IV, "Embriagar a Rubens". Por lo tanto, dudo mucho que como pretende ver el autor, esta exageración y pseudointerpretación de las obras artísticas que señala con mayor o menor tino, según el caso, no tienen que ver con una "corrección política" sino con otra cosa.
El único mérito que encontré en este libro fue el de señalar, a veces con sobrada ironía, antes bien que con una crítica sólida y decidida, el pésimo quehacer de las instituciones, academias y editores que publican salvajes tonterías.
Claro que hay ejemplos en este libro que destacan por su impresionante arrojo. Particularmente el capítulo "Hacer de Sargent una fantasía", en donde el porf. Lubin nos habla de sobre la letra "s" (letra con la que comienza la palabra "sperm" y que a su vez tiene forma de esperma, al suprimirse en el acento circunflejo del francés y empalmarse sobre la letra "i" esta queda necesariamente preñada), o de semejanzas fonéticas y psicoanalíticas de muy diversa índole. Realmente es un capítulo memorable, sin duda.
Ahora bien, la idea de Kimball respecto a la "Historia del arte" es muy clara: desbrozar la mirada del espectador ante un cuadro de un gran maestro. (Cabe preguntarse si lo que quería hacer, por ejemplo, Heidegger o Derrida al comentar a Van Gogh fuera la de escribir algo parecido a una Historia del arte, fuera del corte que fuera). Pero esa es una idea, hasta cierto punto, bastante corta. Museística, turistera, chafa en una palabra.
El arte no es únicamente un hecho museístico para el recreo del placer estético. ¿Será por eso que el Sr. Kimball solo habla de arte que sigue siendo, hasta un cierto punto, clásico? Como Rubens, Gaugin, Van Gogh, Curbet... incluso, con ciertas dificultades y reservas, se lanza sobre Rothko, pero muy probablemente sabe que ir más allá es ir a dar al traste con la idea de lo que él se refiera como arte.
Es decir, ¿qué haremos con los muralistas mexicanos que abiertamente fueron políticos? ¿Qué haremos con el arte conceptual que a veces ni siquiera presenta una obra a los sentidos para que se deliten? ¿Qué se hará con las pinturas de Lascaux o Altamira cuyo propósito, muy probablemente, no era el deleite estético de los hombres de las cavernas? ¿Qué se hará con todo el arte religioso que lo que pretendería sería más bien inspirar constricción y virtud en quienes lo vieran? Más bien pareciera que este fenómeno estético del museo y la contemplación pareciera una cosa tan absolutamente moderna, que no cumple ni los 200 años de vida, en contra de los miles y miles de años que lleva el arte por ahí, pululando. Cabe recordar que hasta la fecha, ni siquiera se ha podido llevar a cabo un catálogo extenso y minucioso de la pinacoteca del Museo del Prado: ¡tan poco es el tiempo que se lleva pensando que el arte solo sirve para ser visto!
Muy bien, sentado esto, cualquiera que tenga sentido común, admitiría que la mayoría de las declaraciones del señor Kimball en lo que respecta a ciertos críticos son atinadas, aunque de dudoso gusto. Sobre todo en lo que respecta al capítulos I, III, IV y V. Hay material de donde cortar, no cabe duda. En los capítulos II, VI y VII, la cosa por lo menos a mí no me queda tan clara. Toda vez que el señor Kimball escogerá con sumo cuidado las citas y textos que incluye de los libros de tal manera que muestren los pasajes más cuestionables. Mejor sería, en tales casos, leer con detenimiento los textos en cuestión.
Me explico: En el capítulo II, "Inventar a Mark Rothko", si bien podemos admitir que decir que sus pinturas más emblemáticas tienen la estrucutra de una pietá es una cosa bastante cuestionable, no es menos extraño el hecho de que Rothko siempre haya insistido en separarse de la etiqueta de "abstracto". ¿Qué pasa aquí? ¿Acaso Rothko no sabía ni lo que pintaba? ¿No es ese el mismo argumento que usa el señor Kimball para arrojar estiércol sobre las palabras del profesor Fired sobre Curbet? Decir que Curbet no sabía lo que hacía cuando pintaba parece despectivo, ¿no? Pues lo mismo me parece decir que Rothko no sabía lo que decía cuando insistía en decir que él era un pintor realista. Si lo dice Rothko, por lo menos hay que tomar un poco en serio la declaración.
En el capítulo VI, "Fetichizar a Gauguin", nos encontramos ante la profesora Griselda Pollock que habla sobre el eurocentrismo, machismo y el simulacro en la pintura salvaje de Gauguin. Sin entrar en valoraciones sobre el trabajo de Pollock, algo que no he leído y probablemente nunca haga, lo cierto es que hay que recordar que en la medida en que el arte sea tomado de una manera distinta al objeto de estudio al que pretende reducirlo Kimball, las producciones sobre él serán completamente distintas. El enfoque es lo que acaba determinando si lo que tenemos es una guía para el Salon des Refusés o un intento de estudio, mejor o peor logrado, de una parte de la cultura o la sociedad.
Finalmente, merece un comentario más largo el capítulo VII, "Revelar a Van Gogh", y lo merece porque en este caso conozco de primera mano (y bastante recientemente por lo demás), la conferencia que comenta el señor Kimball de Heidegger en la que comenta de paso a Van Gogh. Hay que ser claro y decir que El orígen de la obra de arte, no es un estudio sobre Van Gogh, ni mucho menos una historia del arte. Si forzamos un poco las cosas, podemos llegar a decir que se trata de un ensayito relacionado con temas estéticos. Ni siquiera diría que es un ensayo sobre estética. Porque no habla ni de lo bello, ni lo bonito. Es un ensayo de ontología que intenta ver en el arte una ventana a la revelación del ser de las cosas. (Oiga, usted puede perfectamente estar en desacuerdo, yo lo estoy). Pero no tiene nada que ver con una visión objetiva e histórica sobre Van Gogh ni ningún otro artista. Si Heidegger toma a Van Gogh lo hace porque le sale al paso y nada más. Van Gogh es un ejemplo, como lo toma también de Hölderlin o poetas clásicos grecolatinos. Podemos pasar horas discutiendo sobre las implicaciones de la ontología estética de Heidegger, pero detenernos a hablar sobre Van Gogh en Hediegger es no ver el bosque por centrarse en una brizna de hierba. (Por otro lado, ¿alguien leería a Heidegger buscando desbrozar su mirada sobre un Van Gogh?)...
Como digo, solo conozco este texto claramente y lo veo descontextualizado, quiero confiar en que el señor Kimball no ha hecho lo mismo con el resto de críticas, pero... en fin. Es un libro de fácil lectura, lo cual hay gente que eso le gusta, creí que por lo menos sería enriquecedor o daría puntos de vista interesantes y polémicos, pero realmente no. En los puntos más interesantes y cruciales, -función del arte, características de la apreciación y contemplación, razones estructurales de la degeneración de la crítica de arte, deriva del arte contemporáneo- Kimball decide no mojarse ni intervenir. Se dedica simplemente a decir que el arte es para la contemplación y deleite estético. También y ya que tenía un ánimo belicoso este libro, se hecho más en falta una buena crítica a las instituciones y editores que lanzaban estos libros, un estudio, aunque fuese, más a profundidad de este monstruo superdesarrollado de los estudios culturales.
En cuanto a la edición de FCE, la verdad es que hay que preguntarse: ¿por qué ha sido editado de esta manera? ¿Por qué en un breviario una obra tan sin chiste ni gracia? ¡Y por qué, si ya decidieron editarlo, lo hacen tan mal! No soy amigo del sistema de citas del MLA. Siempre he preferido, ante cualquier cosa, el sistema de citas de notas a pie de página. Sé que los criterios editoriales van cambiando a hacer un libro lo más pulcro posible... y entiendo hasta que punto para ellos son útiles las citas con formato MLA, pero en este libro no se aplica ni un modelo ni otro, sino ese engorroso y chafo sistema de notas al final del libro. Es lo peor que se puede hacer a la hora de seleccionar un sistema para acomodar notas y citas. Nefasto.
January 25, 2026
Performative ignorance must hit so hard when you’re stupid
February 4, 2020
I liked this book a lot. The author did a very good job of a job that desperately needs doing, namely deconstructing the nuaseatingly self absorbed culture of art criticism. Using examples of notable works of art which have been wildly abused by ridiculous attempts to bend their meanings to modern politically correct ideals, the writer sheds light on the lengths that some people will go to in order to make the universe at large agree with their viewpoint. Some of the examples made me laugh out loud, some made me want to cry, all had me questioning peoples sanity. If you like me have ever pulled a muscle doing a eye roll at an art show, this book is for you.
February 20, 2013
My review at http://www.examiner.com/article/you-d...
YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT
In The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Roger Kimball selects a handful of paintings to show how post-modern art critics invent meaning to suit their own political agenda, or to fit current fashionable theory necessary to their academic careers.
The chapter on Mark Rothko most easily and obviously makes Kimball's point. The painting in question, "Untitled, 1953," is not the one linked here but is very similar, and the differences make no difference to the argument. The painting consists of a few blocks or bands of color. A critic named Peter Selz wrote "his paintings can be likened to annunciations." Annunciations of what? Surely not the Annunciation? Selz goes on to compare the painting to the space between God's and Adam's fingers on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and further likens it to the first day of Creation.
Here a clear absence of meaning is apparently intolerable to a man who presumably would have no truck with the Christian meanings clearly present in classical paintings. The last two thousand years of art weigh on Selz's mind in spite of himself.
The other paintings in Kimball's book are traditionally representational, but the trendy critics insist on providing meanings that only they can see, because they are more aware, intelligent, intuitive, sensitive than everyone else. Thus the non-sexual portrait by Sargent of four little daughters of his friend Edward Darley Boit is fraught with sordid undertones, according to Professor David M. Lubin.
This sort of analysis is an unpleasant remnant of the 20th century habit of analyzing everything in Freudian terms, a mind trick common among certain professors trying to assert their superiority, and college boys trying to influence impressionable girls. Amazingly this ego-driven assertion of incoherent and untenable free-association as a replacement for reason has even oozed its way into the hard sciences: note the latest exhibition by Columbia professor of physics Emlyn Hughes, who stripped in front of his class.
The examples Kimball uses are typical now, not unusual. This kind of art criticism is like political critics who see racism (and sexism, etc.) everywhere. If nothing is there, as in Rothko's painting, they see something. If something is there, they see something else. And they are going to tell you what you are really thinking, and what the artist is really thinking, regardless of what the artist said or painted, and regardless of what you think you think.
YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT
In The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, Roger Kimball selects a handful of paintings to show how post-modern art critics invent meaning to suit their own political agenda, or to fit current fashionable theory necessary to their academic careers.
The chapter on Mark Rothko most easily and obviously makes Kimball's point. The painting in question, "Untitled, 1953," is not the one linked here but is very similar, and the differences make no difference to the argument. The painting consists of a few blocks or bands of color. A critic named Peter Selz wrote "his paintings can be likened to annunciations." Annunciations of what? Surely not the Annunciation? Selz goes on to compare the painting to the space between God's and Adam's fingers on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and further likens it to the first day of Creation.
Here a clear absence of meaning is apparently intolerable to a man who presumably would have no truck with the Christian meanings clearly present in classical paintings. The last two thousand years of art weigh on Selz's mind in spite of himself.
The other paintings in Kimball's book are traditionally representational, but the trendy critics insist on providing meanings that only they can see, because they are more aware, intelligent, intuitive, sensitive than everyone else. Thus the non-sexual portrait by Sargent of four little daughters of his friend Edward Darley Boit is fraught with sordid undertones, according to Professor David M. Lubin.
This sort of analysis is an unpleasant remnant of the 20th century habit of analyzing everything in Freudian terms, a mind trick common among certain professors trying to assert their superiority, and college boys trying to influence impressionable girls. Amazingly this ego-driven assertion of incoherent and untenable free-association as a replacement for reason has even oozed its way into the hard sciences: note the latest exhibition by Columbia professor of physics Emlyn Hughes, who stripped in front of his class.
The examples Kimball uses are typical now, not unusual. This kind of art criticism is like political critics who see racism (and sexism, etc.) everywhere. If nothing is there, as in Rothko's painting, they see something. If something is there, they see something else. And they are going to tell you what you are really thinking, and what the artist is really thinking, regardless of what the artist said or painted, and regardless of what you think you think.
July 25, 2017
Killing of Art
Amazing. Similar to the "Killing of History," showing how similar tactics are applied in the art world. Illustrates how modern art historians and interpreters are engaged in replacing actual experiencing of art with theories of art, political relevance, the commentator's free associations - in short, with text, rather than visual response and contemplation of the actual presentation.
A related goal of the intelligentsia of this ilk is to present emotions as superior to the intellect, specifically as guides and motivators to producing, understanding, and appreciating art (and, by extension, life in general - including politics).
The irrational lengths these critics go to is bewildering; and that they are accepted in so many circles is frightening. Shows a widespread lack of intellectual discrimination.
The author provides an entertaining illustration of how postmodernism is the deadend of irrationalism. Denying the usefulness of reason even for its own ideas. All it leaves is emotionalism. Western culture appears to be on a slippery slope of intellectual incompetence, plunging into a dark age (bloody and mystical), or, hopefully, a rebirth of the Enlightenment spirit of reason will emerge thanks to books such as this.
Amazing. Similar to the "Killing of History," showing how similar tactics are applied in the art world. Illustrates how modern art historians and interpreters are engaged in replacing actual experiencing of art with theories of art, political relevance, the commentator's free associations - in short, with text, rather than visual response and contemplation of the actual presentation.
A related goal of the intelligentsia of this ilk is to present emotions as superior to the intellect, specifically as guides and motivators to producing, understanding, and appreciating art (and, by extension, life in general - including politics).
The irrational lengths these critics go to is bewildering; and that they are accepted in so many circles is frightening. Shows a widespread lack of intellectual discrimination.
The author provides an entertaining illustration of how postmodernism is the deadend of irrationalism. Denying the usefulness of reason even for its own ideas. All it leaves is emotionalism. Western culture appears to be on a slippery slope of intellectual incompetence, plunging into a dark age (bloody and mystical), or, hopefully, a rebirth of the Enlightenment spirit of reason will emerge thanks to books such as this.
April 4, 2019
Finally someone willing to point out the Emperor's New Clothes for what they really are, and with a huge dose of sarcastic humor to boot. I was starting to think maybe I'd lost the plot when looking at artworks in famous museums, and reading about art history and the theory behind art, but now I know it's not me. I'm a big fan of art and artists and when, in the last chapter of the book, the author said: “I am not sure what it is about van Gogh that inspires critical hyperventilation.” I knew I'd met a kindred spirit. Amen, brother.
August 26, 2008
Kimball is brilliant.
Hes succinct, articulate, and backs up his arguments with solid, honest intellectual criticism.
He exposes all the "nouveau" historians for what they are,
a bunch of self absorbed no nothings who love to hear themselves pontificate, and spew sophistry to no end.
Hes succinct, articulate, and backs up his arguments with solid, honest intellectual criticism.
He exposes all the "nouveau" historians for what they are,
a bunch of self absorbed no nothings who love to hear themselves pontificate, and spew sophistry to no end.
September 8, 2019
I am only half way through this and its frickin' amazing. "The imaginary point of view is more important and in the end more real than the point of view discerned with one's eyes" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
January 26, 2011
Found the analysis of the art interesting and the commentary about political correctness tedious (tho I agreed).
January 10, 2013
Absolutely hilarious. Your knowledge of art history will definitely increase, in a good way, without a ton bullshit about phallic symbols, menstrual blood and sexuality when you read this book
October 10, 2020
Roger Kimball is a master of his craft. A 'must read' for art lovers.
April 11, 2021
This scathing review of post modern art criticism illuminates the ugly edge of academic abstraction when its perpetrators tear apart exquisite classic art for no sane reason whatsoever. Kimball is erudite and reasoned in his every examination of how radical PC attacks by credentialed insiders have caused the ivory tower of the art world to lose so much credibility.
I thought I was alone in refusing to march in lockstep with fashionable theory spouted by egoistic influencers who create no art, but gleefully theorize about imagined perversions in history's masterpieces. Kimball points out this these theorists are not just the fringe of academic criticism, but have woven themselves through the fabric of schools and institutions. History's great paintings have been vandalized and discredited, while the perpetrators of this nonsense are lauded.
When political correctness is observed as a guideline to be tolerant and polite it has great merit. When used as a weapon to slash a path to a place of power, the backlash can be devastating in many different fields. The backlash of radical divisiveness can result in everything from a loss of credibility in the art world to the election of someone like the 45th president. If you have ever wondered if something might be a little 'off' in the art world, this brilliant series of essays will help understand why.
I thought I was alone in refusing to march in lockstep with fashionable theory spouted by egoistic influencers who create no art, but gleefully theorize about imagined perversions in history's masterpieces. Kimball points out this these theorists are not just the fringe of academic criticism, but have woven themselves through the fabric of schools and institutions. History's great paintings have been vandalized and discredited, while the perpetrators of this nonsense are lauded.
When political correctness is observed as a guideline to be tolerant and polite it has great merit. When used as a weapon to slash a path to a place of power, the backlash can be devastating in many different fields. The backlash of radical divisiveness can result in everything from a loss of credibility in the art world to the election of someone like the 45th president. If you have ever wondered if something might be a little 'off' in the art world, this brilliant series of essays will help understand why.
October 17, 2023
The subtitle has little to do with the content - I still cannot see where political correctness comes into the picture, there is only over-interpretation, (stupid) application of 'theory.' There are some strawman fallacies here and there, but the text, as it presents itself, is polemical, so that's not such a big problem. Kimball's style is entertaining and witty, and his project of returning to the artwork is appealing. But the aim of the book is somewhat missed - of course rambling about commodities, psychonalysis etc. could be in some (maybe even many) cases beside the point while doing art history, but they can also inform our appraisal of works of art. Is there any way of deciding when those tendencies become harmful?
January 20, 2025
While not a self-sufficient primer for art appreciation, these essays are a relevant warning to aspiring art researchers today. Serious students of art should be traveling to experience art in-person and should discern when an essay of art criticism is describing the work of art from when it is merely using the artwork to illustrate its own text. However, Kimball's knee-jerk impulse to openly mock the 'floridly linguistic' art historians he targets is not the most effective way to undermine their approach to art. Thus the book tries to "condition" or "discipline" the reader into agreeing with a more traditional art-methodology rather than defending it.
TLDR: Kimball wrote this book because he wanted to fire off some pot-shots at famous art criticisms that academia takes too seriously.
TLDR: Kimball wrote this book because he wanted to fire off some pot-shots at famous art criticisms that academia takes too seriously.
July 19, 2017
An amusing read.
April 9, 2018
A lamentation on the state of Art Criticism in the postmodern era.
October 8, 2022
A true eye-opener. EVERY art or art history major absolutely needs to read this book. Crucial on fixing a society that has gone too far. I loved the witty and humorous narration.
July 17, 2025
if youre racist and sexist just say so bro.. no need to yap on for 200 pages about it
June 15, 2020
Effectively critiques a few examples representative of the influence of "critical theory" on art history, another humanities field ruined by marxism
June 10, 2013
Amazing Kimball should be praised for his candid candor.
Read
September 21, 2007One of my favorites, loaned it out and haven't seen it since
October 13, 2008
Unnecessarily inflammatory
March 27, 2017
This book could have been named a vindication on the rights of the artist, a(n) (unfortunately) futile attempt to unveil the prevalent gibberish promoted as criticism in many disciplines of humanities. Kimball presents several instances of misinterpretation of art works as evidence, to show "How Political Correctness Sabotages Art". To do him justice, some of the wild ramblings quoted in the book look quite tame, compared to what came in the following years, which justifies Kimball's concerns.
At beginning I was feeling relieved to find someone shouting the king is naked!, but midway through the book the feeling was replaced with boredom. The writing was witty, and it certainly needs guts make a buffoon out of Heidegger and Derrida. However, although these materials were more than sufficient for a weekly column, they fail to bring the author's intentions home.
Following his example, I consult the dictionary for the meaning of political correctness: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
While the book in bringing up examples of over-interpretations of artworks, according to the academic trends (class, gender, post-colonialism, etc.), I fail to understand the exact relationship of political correctness to sabotaging art. Yes, art had been sabotaged by some critics and academicians, in some gruesome ways, but is it political correctness which makes Peter Selz and co to draw similarities between Rothko's mature artworks and the structure of a Pieta? The final chapter, the author's coup de grace, is on van Gogh's shoe drawings, extensively brings quotations from Martin Heidegger, whom is labeled as a Nazi collaborator in one of the footnotes. Looks like the embodiment of political correctness to me.
Alright, seems we have different notions of the word political correct. Lets rename it to
"The Rape of the Masters: How Over-Interpreation Sabotages Art". Once again, I can't understand why exactly these seven artworks, and the attached theorizations were used. The fields are so rich, that the possibilities were endless. Wasn't it more appropriate to choose some prevalent legends/understandings/readings of artworks, and reveal the the true artwork out of its shrouding interpretations? Or was it just more easier to choose some academic texts and (justly) deride them?
At beginning I was feeling relieved to find someone shouting the king is naked!, but midway through the book the feeling was replaced with boredom. The writing was witty, and it certainly needs guts make a buffoon out of Heidegger and Derrida. However, although these materials were more than sufficient for a weekly column, they fail to bring the author's intentions home.
Following his example, I consult the dictionary for the meaning of political correctness: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
While the book in bringing up examples of over-interpretations of artworks, according to the academic trends (class, gender, post-colonialism, etc.), I fail to understand the exact relationship of political correctness to sabotaging art. Yes, art had been sabotaged by some critics and academicians, in some gruesome ways, but is it political correctness which makes Peter Selz and co to draw similarities between Rothko's mature artworks and the structure of a Pieta? The final chapter, the author's coup de grace, is on van Gogh's shoe drawings, extensively brings quotations from Martin Heidegger, whom is labeled as a Nazi collaborator in one of the footnotes. Looks like the embodiment of political correctness to me.
Alright, seems we have different notions of the word political correct. Lets rename it to
"The Rape of the Masters: How Over-Interpreation Sabotages Art". Once again, I can't understand why exactly these seven artworks, and the attached theorizations were used. The fields are so rich, that the possibilities were endless. Wasn't it more appropriate to choose some prevalent legends/understandings/readings of artworks, and reveal the the true artwork out of its shrouding interpretations? Or was it just more easier to choose some academic texts and (justly) deride them?
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews