O Significado da Arte

by Herbert Read

Since its first appearance in 1931 Herbert Read's introduction to the understanding of art has established itself as a classic of its kind. It provides a basis for the appreciation of paintings, sculpture and art-objects of all periods by defining the elements that went into their making.

A compact survey of the world's art, from primitive cave-drawings to Jackson Pollock, The Meaning of Art explains the persistence of certain principles and aspirations throughout the history of art, and summarizes the essence of such movements as Gothic, Baroque, Impressionism, Expressionism and Surrealism.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Art History, Philosophy, Cultural, History

180 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

Sir Herbert Edward Read, (1893 - 1968) was an English art historian, poet, literary critic and philosopher, best known for numerous books on art, which included influential volumes on the role of art in education. Politically, Read considered himself an anarchist, albeit in the English quietist tradition of Edward Carpenter and William Morris.

Read was co-founder of the Institute of Contemporary Art & the publisher and editor-in-chief of Jung's collected works in English.

On 11 November 1985, Read was among 16 Great War poets commemorated on a slate stone unveiled in Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner.

He was the father of the well-known writer Piers Paul Read, the BBC documentary maker John Read, the BBC producer and executive Tom Read, and the art historian Ben Read.

Reviews

[carolina · Rating 4 out of 5]

overall this was a great book, its beautifully written and i liked read’s style (i was pleasantly surprised that he LOVES mexican art, usually these kinds of books never mention any sort of mesoamerican art) alas, like any other book that tries to tackle the “entire” history of art, this book focuses mostly in europe and even though it is very well written and suuuuper informative, once it reaches romanticism, it rushes past the last art periods and doesn’t go as deeply as it did in the earliest periods, again, this is what usually happens in these kinds of books. i loved how read talks about the relationship between art and religion and art and society (WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT) and how he compares art to music and how he moves from one period to another, clearly this man knows his shit. even though this was written in the thirties it felt very modern and was genuinely such an easy read and i love how accesible and understandable it is, its literally a book for ANYONE.
I DO HAVE TO SAY I THINK HE MENTIONED ONE (1) FEMALE ARTIST SO DO WITH THAT AS YOU MAY (that's literally the only reason why this gets 4 stars bc i really enjoyed this book)

[Stephanie Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short but perfectly formed. It may have been written in 1931, but virtually every paragraph has something in it that is thought provoking, interesting and worthy of discussion. It is, however, very much for the art historian or someone interested in art and aesthetics - not for the casual reader (but then very little I read is probably for the casual reader, if I'm honest).

[الشناوي محمد جبر · Rating 1 out of 5]

الكتاب موجود في مكتبتي منذ عام 1998، أي منذ عشرين سنة، وكلما فتحته تراجعت عن قراءته وتكرر هذا الأمر مرات، وظننت أن العيب عندي، لكن ومع تكرار الأمر هذا العدد من المرات في كتاب صغير الحجم، أعتقد أن العيب في الكتاب نفسه.
الكتاب ركيك جدا في أسلوبه ومادته غير مفيدة بالمرة.

[Mustafa · Rating 3 out of 5]

First and last sections of this book were very good. Didn’t care too much for the middle section probably because of a lack of technical knowledge about art. The bits where he went through different artists especially their lives was very interesting. Almost all the artists had travelled to different places and used those experiences to improve on their art.

[Giovanni García-Fenech · Rating 1 out of 5]

I hate to be the one to say it, but this book is useless. Herbert Read offers a definition of what makes art, but his definition was already passé thanks to Marcel Duchamp, who had upended the importance of aesthetics nearly two decades before this book was written. Everything that follows is just as outdated, and hence as pointless.

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

good history of art piece

https://www.tumblr.com/francesbeau/71...

[Fiona · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came across this on the syllabus for Leaving Certificate Art and it has proved to be both enjoyable and informative

[muhmd sabri]

ملل مش طبيعي

[Hamid · Rating 3 out of 5]

معنی هنر بیشتر بررسی کوتاهی در زمینۀ تاریخ هنره، نه اونقدر اثری تحلیلی و نه حتی اثری بالقوه در ابعاد تاریخ هنر. در واقع به نظرم برای خوانندۀ امروزی و درکی که از هنر داره -با کمی بی‌انصافی- حتی لحظه‌ای به معنی هنر نزدیک هم نمیشه؛ بی‌انصافی از این جهت که به هرحال چیزی حدود هفتاد سال از نگارش کتاب می‌گذره ولی باز انتظار می‌ره از نویسنده‌ای که این چنین پرشور از کانستبل و دولاکروا و بلیک سخن می‌گه نسبت به اتفاقاتی که دودهه متأخر نویسنده رخ داده بی‌توجه نباشه. کتاب از هنر انسان‌های بدوی شروع می‌کنه و نهایتاً تا مجسمه‌سازهایی مثل هنری مور و هپ‌وُرث جلو میاد. نقطه قوت کتاب هم به نظرم انسجام نسبتاً خوب مطالبه که مثل خیلی از کتاب‌های دیگه خواننده رو سردرگم نمی‌کنه. با این همه هربرت رید از نظر من نویسندۀ قابل توجهی‌یه و حتماً سراغ کتابای دیگه‌ش هم میرم ولی در رابطه با این اثر همونطور که گفتم به نظرم سال‌هاست که تاریخ انقضاش تموم شده.

[Salah Missi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would have put 10 stars if we can!! One of the most amazing books in briefing the meaning of art...

[Abbi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a mixed bag. There were some really insightful thoughts on the purpose of art, key figures of various art movements, the motivations behind the use of different techniques in constructing an image, etc. However, it's limited in scope - no female artists are mentioned (although I will concede that this is an old text so that was not particularly surprising) and parts that were ostensibly about an artist (e.g. Turner) sometimes gave no information about their style, medium, inspiration. It also uses very outdated language about race and espouses problematic ideas about the inherent nature of racial groups and how that ties into their artistic output/culture. Again, this text is old, so it's to be expected, but it's no less disappointing to read.

[Audrey Kalman · Rating 3 out of 5]

sick burn on PK towards the end: "I have seen architectural drawings by Klee of a precision and beauty that would satisfy the severest academic tests. Klee was a supreme draughtsman; perhaps it is necessary to affirm this before considering the nature of his work."

lots of still relevant thoughts on art and art history. Also a fair amount of thoughts that don't hold up

[Tyrol]

Interesting, but the topic is so broad that it feels a bit superficial at times. Perhaps this philosophy of art was current at the time. Perhaps Read helped define it. He aims very high so it feels churlish to criticize.

[midsizedchillybin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly readable. Good history of art movements and some interesting reflections on art itself. Gets a bit stuck up its arse towards the end, but what do you expect from a book called The Meaning of Art?

[Cyprien Saito · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the point of view posed in this book.

[sasha · Rating 2 out of 5]

meh, not structured coherently

[Ally B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

lost me in the middle im afraid. first and last sections were good though.

[Amy Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Along with Kenneth Clark and Ersnt Gombrich, Herbert Read is part of the holy trinity of the modern tradition of art history writing. Written with clarity and understanding Read runs through the meaning of image making from ancient China to Henry Moore, exploring how art can be understood as an expression of human consciousness.

[ابنه عطارد · Rating 3 out of 5]

احد الكتب المتخصصه جدا والتريخيه