What do you think?
Rate this book
The Decline and Fall of Western Art
Modern art is best described as a psychological disease, the goal of which is nothing less than the total destruction of art — which it has more or less successfully done.
Modern art is not a natural evolution of art, but a kind of manufactured break from tradition, borne from a hubris and bias towards historical values. People today suffer a subconscious price for the suffocation and confusion of our ugly art galleries and cityscapes, standing in the long shadows cast by meaningless, obtuse shapes.
Contrary to what we have been taught, that abstraction in art progressed from Romanticism (like a frog in the slow-boiling pot) there is instead an easily discernible point where the tradition was broken, and the modern imposed itself. These are opposing world-views at war with one another and have little to do with progress or technology.
The day the abstract scribbling manufactured its own language, a philosophy was born whose aim was to destroy true art, forever.
Modern art is not a natural evolution of art, but a kind of manufactured break from tradition, borne from a hubris and bias towards historical values. People today suffer a subconscious price for the suffocation and confusion of our ugly art galleries and cityscapes, standing in the long shadows cast by meaningless, obtuse shapes.
Contrary to what we have been taught, that abstraction in art progressed from Romanticism (like a frog in the slow-boiling pot) there is instead an easily discernible point where the tradition was broken, and the modern imposed itself. These are opposing world-views at war with one another and have little to do with progress or technology.
The day the abstract scribbling manufactured its own language, a philosophy was born whose aim was to destroy true art, forever.
319 pages, Paperback
Published September 3, 2018
21 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
About the author
Brendan M.P. Heard
13 books20 followersBrendan Heard appeared over the Nile one summer day, floating and shimmering as did the cosmic egg over the black water of Nu at the beginning of time.
And he was heard at that time to say:
'Lo! I am Born with Ra.'
And as the sun floated upon the water's breast, he was with Ra then, as he was with Nu. And when Brendan, according to his desire, uttered the deep thoughts of his mind, that which he named had being. When he gazed into space, that which he desired to see appeared before him.
And he went out among men; he took form like unto theirs, and to him the centuries were as years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
November 28, 2022
As an art lover, I had heard about this book a while ago from Facebook. Whilst I was fully aware that its ideas are completely opposed to mine, I decided to give it a read anyway since reading works that you do not necessarily agree with can teach you something new. After all, who wants to live in an echochamber? Having all these diverse ideas out in the open to read and interrogate is the beauty of a liberal democracy...something that Heard ironically criticises even though a liberal democracy was what had allowed him to publish this book in the first place.
While his overarching point is very clear, he completely goes against his own argument: that quality is better than quantity in art. The book, sadly does too much in trying to cover every facet of art and architecture...even squeezing in fashion, environmentalism and economics. Okay, so he wants a qausi-socialist agrarian feudal society. What was the point in this? Heard could have easily conveyed his point succinctly by talking about strictly visual art or strictly architecture. Due to this need to cover so many topics, the book became so unfocussed and verbose.
Another weak point in this book was the lack of research. Wikipedia should not be quoted verbatim as an academic source and Heard could have easily made a stronger work by addressing more sources. It's understandable that he scorns modern art, but doing more adequate research into that field would have really boosted his point and made this a successful (maybe even persuasive) book. Heard lacks knowledge in modern art and doesn't even make the effort to understand it...maybe that was the point. But any professor would tell you that a work of writing is automatically stronger with sound evidence and knowledge. You want to persuade your reader, not belittle them, nor should you throw generalisations to things you don't like or understand.
I also do not understand why Heard has such a hatred for female artists. Sure, Yoko Ono is not everyone's cup of tea, but there are many other female artists who have followed traditionalist painterly styles that the author would like. Making a sweeping generalisation by saying that "men are the creative sex" really weakens his book and does little to elevate his argument. I suggest Heard looks up Artemisia Gentileschi, if he hasn't already.
I give this book some kudos for at least having a sound understanding in Ancient Greek/Roman tradition and craftsmanship. From reading the first chapters and the last few, Heard's passion in the topic is evident, whereas the apathy and anger in the middle chapters can turn the reader off. Perhaps Heard could have more success in writing a book on a topic he is passionate about and genuinely enjoys, rather than attacking art he does not understand.
While his overarching point is very clear, he completely goes against his own argument: that quality is better than quantity in art. The book, sadly does too much in trying to cover every facet of art and architecture...even squeezing in fashion, environmentalism and economics. Okay, so he wants a qausi-socialist agrarian feudal society. What was the point in this? Heard could have easily conveyed his point succinctly by talking about strictly visual art or strictly architecture. Due to this need to cover so many topics, the book became so unfocussed and verbose.
Another weak point in this book was the lack of research. Wikipedia should not be quoted verbatim as an academic source and Heard could have easily made a stronger work by addressing more sources. It's understandable that he scorns modern art, but doing more adequate research into that field would have really boosted his point and made this a successful (maybe even persuasive) book. Heard lacks knowledge in modern art and doesn't even make the effort to understand it...maybe that was the point. But any professor would tell you that a work of writing is automatically stronger with sound evidence and knowledge. You want to persuade your reader, not belittle them, nor should you throw generalisations to things you don't like or understand.
I also do not understand why Heard has such a hatred for female artists. Sure, Yoko Ono is not everyone's cup of tea, but there are many other female artists who have followed traditionalist painterly styles that the author would like. Making a sweeping generalisation by saying that "men are the creative sex" really weakens his book and does little to elevate his argument. I suggest Heard looks up Artemisia Gentileschi, if he hasn't already.
I give this book some kudos for at least having a sound understanding in Ancient Greek/Roman tradition and craftsmanship. From reading the first chapters and the last few, Heard's passion in the topic is evident, whereas the apathy and anger in the middle chapters can turn the reader off. Perhaps Heard could have more success in writing a book on a topic he is passionate about and genuinely enjoys, rather than attacking art he does not understand.
July 30, 2023
This book is more like a manifesto, a continuous and highly emotive rant against abstract expressionism and conceptualism and the prevalence of leftist culture. Some of it is quite justified, as so much of modern art is literally “$#!+ and deserves little more than contempt and mockery. I did, however, wish for a more sober and historical look at the decline and fall of Western Art. It often seemed good argumentation was replaced with overly polemical attacks and ridicule and the parading of opinion.
The author is like someone from an altogether different century, like Nietzsche, he has a disgust for anything that results in weakness--embracing classical ideals of strength--even if that means brutality towards the "lesser" people. He also favors the classical code of honor, Chivalry, and like philosophers of old, has some sexist views; while I am opposed to third-wave feminism, his stance is a bit too far on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Though he touched a little on the history, this was too brief. I think Realism, Romanticism, and Impressionism challenged the prejudices of the time, and there was a period of exploring the boundaries that included Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, and Expressionism—the telos of art changed to challenging the boundaries and expanding the concept of what is good art (and I think our world is a richer place because of it). WWI, however, resulted in some artists and leftists becoming utterly disillusioned with the West and the hope of progress, and they took part in a nihilistic anti-art movement that sought to express outright contempt for the good, the beautiful, and the true. Desiring to negate and destroy, they went to partake in this previous game (what is art)—by claiming anything is art including trash, poop, piss, and litter picked up off of the street. The inclusion of this revolutionary idea, rather than expanding the boundaries (like putting more food on the buffet table) resulted in a new tyranny, vastly limiting what was to be considered “art”. For in practice DADA and what was to follow viewed the good, the beautiful, and the true with contempt and replaced them with the ugly, unskilled, repugnant, boring, or shocking. An anti-art movement remarkably became the only acceptable “art” in the institution which was completely embraced by the establishment and has been enforced ever since. The fox (dada) was let into the hen house (the art establishment). It does seem the movements (expanding the boundaries of fine art) of the late 19th century made the art establishment vulnerable to this art-killing virus. With the virus taking hold, mutating, and propagating itself, it has continued to colonize and devour and destroy, making it so the entire cultural apparatus is to admire, value and promote art’s negation and antithesis.
Modern art seems to be influenced by a belief that there is no underlying structure of reality, that all meaning is simply ascribed to things, and that the underlying motive for everyone is power in a zero-sum game. Due to the reign of conceptualism in Fine Art institutions, skill and beauty are strictly off-limits and only those things historically not considered as art (things that are ugly, repugnant, politically extreme, or boring) are to be allowed. Now for the postmodernist, the individual is supposed to construct “truths” and ascribe value. Using art speak, critics and art writers must wax poetical about the sublime profundity of trash. For those indoctrinated with what is now called “fine art”, find themselves conditioned to value what they, in their right mind, would throw into the landfill. A hoarder can have a love affair with trash and have it pile up to the ceiling, terrified of throwing anything out. Unwholesome affections can develop in otherwise sane human beings. Pathologies and psychosis, and paranoid self-delusions are proof that one’s lived experience is constructed to an extent. There are still the constraints of nature and an underlying structure of reality, however. I can delude myself that I am a bird, and begin to mimic some of the characteristics of a bird, but if I jump off a cliff with the delusion that I can fly, I’ll meet reality.
Once again, it is fascinating the way they promoted postmodernism is by valuing trash. The sickening inconsistency though is saying all truth is constructed and there is no nature or deeper truth claims, but then declaring war on all that has historically been considered true, beautiful, and good. If everything is equal in its banality—why attack it? Sure, go ahead, worship, and ascribe meaning to vomit, poop, and piss, but let others “have their own truth.” The reality though, is it is truth, beauty, and goodness—underlying nature and reality that exposes the vacuity and unreality of what they’ve chosen to preference. Possibly, this embrace of constructivism as their absolute truth—all objective realities pose a threat to their ideology. With the belief that everything is simply power plays, they find meaning in vanquishing their foe. Using thought-terminating cliches and tapping into tendencies of human psychology, they can successfully get the masses to confirm the creed and confess as true the absurd. Having inherited a delusion, the brain wants to maintain it, threats need to be eliminated and comforts found—everything must be in service of maintaining one illusion and having people—lots of people agree, in fact, having the entirety of society declaring and acting as if one’s fantasy is true must be comforting. Bad ideas are nearly indestructible—like a tenacious virus. What makes postmodernism and Marxism so pernicious—is once the ideas find a host, everything reasonable, true, good, and wholesome poses a threat to the maintenance of the virus. Ironically, they must use reason to try and destroy reason, and values to destroy all value. Some ideas are like mind-controlling parasites.
There is an underlying structure of reality. While an object like a coffee cup is subjectively perceived by the human subject, and its function and worth are in part socially constructed, the diversity is normally within the constraints of reality (something that everyone—regardless of culture work within). Yes, some cultures may use the coffee cup for hot tea, other cultures may use it as a pee cup; while some cultures may view it with little value, others may treasure it. However, what we will not likely get is anyone believing and acting as if the coffee cup is an airplane, that its function is to allow humans to fly. So, now if we take art, within aesthetics--our sense of the good and the beautiful and the true, it also seems there is an underlying structure of reality, however, it is fairly broad. There will be differences from culture to culture, as values are in part socially constructed, however, this is often within boundaries. It seems those who hate the West, who resent how like 3% of the world population have had so much sway and influence over the entire world, wanted to highlight ways the West has constructed their sense of truth, beauty, and goodness and then they ascribe the worst conceivable motive to them, claiming that their entire culture heritage merely attempts to promote and maintain ill-gotten power and cement the white male racist and colonial patriarchy. Art movements like Impressionism revealed the problematic and limiting constraints--the underlying structure of the beautiful was broader than assumed. This truth was then used to employ a lie--that lie that there simply is no structure--there is no actual reality.
Normalcy (the bounds are wide, maybe wider than we thought), but things can still go beyond the bounds. Consider good food, for example, it has a wide range of tastes, but eating sewage and drinking cat piss crosses the line outside of normalcy. That is not to say that people can be conditioned to acquire a taste for these things—it still is unnatural and a perversion. I think of Foucault, who claimed no difference between being mentally healthy and madness, it is just a social construct—that in the pursuit of power, the dominant oppressors ascribe norms. For those who go this route, there is no difference between some dog poop on the street and the Mona Lisa, it is just that people were conditioned (by those in power) to like the Mona Lisa more. The modern art museum is now in the business of pushing this horrible metaphysics in our faces.
The author is like someone from an altogether different century, like Nietzsche, he has a disgust for anything that results in weakness--embracing classical ideals of strength--even if that means brutality towards the "lesser" people. He also favors the classical code of honor, Chivalry, and like philosophers of old, has some sexist views; while I am opposed to third-wave feminism, his stance is a bit too far on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Though he touched a little on the history, this was too brief. I think Realism, Romanticism, and Impressionism challenged the prejudices of the time, and there was a period of exploring the boundaries that included Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, and Expressionism—the telos of art changed to challenging the boundaries and expanding the concept of what is good art (and I think our world is a richer place because of it). WWI, however, resulted in some artists and leftists becoming utterly disillusioned with the West and the hope of progress, and they took part in a nihilistic anti-art movement that sought to express outright contempt for the good, the beautiful, and the true. Desiring to negate and destroy, they went to partake in this previous game (what is art)—by claiming anything is art including trash, poop, piss, and litter picked up off of the street. The inclusion of this revolutionary idea, rather than expanding the boundaries (like putting more food on the buffet table) resulted in a new tyranny, vastly limiting what was to be considered “art”. For in practice DADA and what was to follow viewed the good, the beautiful, and the true with contempt and replaced them with the ugly, unskilled, repugnant, boring, or shocking. An anti-art movement remarkably became the only acceptable “art” in the institution which was completely embraced by the establishment and has been enforced ever since. The fox (dada) was let into the hen house (the art establishment). It does seem the movements (expanding the boundaries of fine art) of the late 19th century made the art establishment vulnerable to this art-killing virus. With the virus taking hold, mutating, and propagating itself, it has continued to colonize and devour and destroy, making it so the entire cultural apparatus is to admire, value and promote art’s negation and antithesis.
Modern art seems to be influenced by a belief that there is no underlying structure of reality, that all meaning is simply ascribed to things, and that the underlying motive for everyone is power in a zero-sum game. Due to the reign of conceptualism in Fine Art institutions, skill and beauty are strictly off-limits and only those things historically not considered as art (things that are ugly, repugnant, politically extreme, or boring) are to be allowed. Now for the postmodernist, the individual is supposed to construct “truths” and ascribe value. Using art speak, critics and art writers must wax poetical about the sublime profundity of trash. For those indoctrinated with what is now called “fine art”, find themselves conditioned to value what they, in their right mind, would throw into the landfill. A hoarder can have a love affair with trash and have it pile up to the ceiling, terrified of throwing anything out. Unwholesome affections can develop in otherwise sane human beings. Pathologies and psychosis, and paranoid self-delusions are proof that one’s lived experience is constructed to an extent. There are still the constraints of nature and an underlying structure of reality, however. I can delude myself that I am a bird, and begin to mimic some of the characteristics of a bird, but if I jump off a cliff with the delusion that I can fly, I’ll meet reality.
Once again, it is fascinating the way they promoted postmodernism is by valuing trash. The sickening inconsistency though is saying all truth is constructed and there is no nature or deeper truth claims, but then declaring war on all that has historically been considered true, beautiful, and good. If everything is equal in its banality—why attack it? Sure, go ahead, worship, and ascribe meaning to vomit, poop, and piss, but let others “have their own truth.” The reality though, is it is truth, beauty, and goodness—underlying nature and reality that exposes the vacuity and unreality of what they’ve chosen to preference. Possibly, this embrace of constructivism as their absolute truth—all objective realities pose a threat to their ideology. With the belief that everything is simply power plays, they find meaning in vanquishing their foe. Using thought-terminating cliches and tapping into tendencies of human psychology, they can successfully get the masses to confirm the creed and confess as true the absurd. Having inherited a delusion, the brain wants to maintain it, threats need to be eliminated and comforts found—everything must be in service of maintaining one illusion and having people—lots of people agree, in fact, having the entirety of society declaring and acting as if one’s fantasy is true must be comforting. Bad ideas are nearly indestructible—like a tenacious virus. What makes postmodernism and Marxism so pernicious—is once the ideas find a host, everything reasonable, true, good, and wholesome poses a threat to the maintenance of the virus. Ironically, they must use reason to try and destroy reason, and values to destroy all value. Some ideas are like mind-controlling parasites.
There is an underlying structure of reality. While an object like a coffee cup is subjectively perceived by the human subject, and its function and worth are in part socially constructed, the diversity is normally within the constraints of reality (something that everyone—regardless of culture work within). Yes, some cultures may use the coffee cup for hot tea, other cultures may use it as a pee cup; while some cultures may view it with little value, others may treasure it. However, what we will not likely get is anyone believing and acting as if the coffee cup is an airplane, that its function is to allow humans to fly. So, now if we take art, within aesthetics--our sense of the good and the beautiful and the true, it also seems there is an underlying structure of reality, however, it is fairly broad. There will be differences from culture to culture, as values are in part socially constructed, however, this is often within boundaries. It seems those who hate the West, who resent how like 3% of the world population have had so much sway and influence over the entire world, wanted to highlight ways the West has constructed their sense of truth, beauty, and goodness and then they ascribe the worst conceivable motive to them, claiming that their entire culture heritage merely attempts to promote and maintain ill-gotten power and cement the white male racist and colonial patriarchy. Art movements like Impressionism revealed the problematic and limiting constraints--the underlying structure of the beautiful was broader than assumed. This truth was then used to employ a lie--that lie that there simply is no structure--there is no actual reality.
Normalcy (the bounds are wide, maybe wider than we thought), but things can still go beyond the bounds. Consider good food, for example, it has a wide range of tastes, but eating sewage and drinking cat piss crosses the line outside of normalcy. That is not to say that people can be conditioned to acquire a taste for these things—it still is unnatural and a perversion. I think of Foucault, who claimed no difference between being mentally healthy and madness, it is just a social construct—that in the pursuit of power, the dominant oppressors ascribe norms. For those who go this route, there is no difference between some dog poop on the street and the Mona Lisa, it is just that people were conditioned (by those in power) to like the Mona Lisa more. The modern art museum is now in the business of pushing this horrible metaphysics in our faces.
May 11, 2020
A comprehensive and strong review of Modernism, Modern Art, and modernity itself that extensively expresses the main thought of the author - the world was better before the 1900s and things started going astray just on the brink of the century.
It is stated that egalitarian, technological modernist society was formed in the woes of the last century which caused a major decline of culture, steepening of real growth, and effemination of men and society in a whole. It is a perplexing matter which seems to be much more complex than the model author built in the book, but once he moves away from politics and considerations on proper ways to develop a right society to the topic in the title - art, his knowledge, and analytical abilities shine much brighter. I like his outlook of skill and tradesmanship required to be a proper fine artist, architectural overview, and investigation of Artspeak and its role in the rise of Modernism.
Even though the thoughts on politics and democracy the author has are not very close to my views, they are cohesive, nicely expressed and fall in line with the other parts of the book comprising the saddening(or hopeful) outlook of the West, its values and a genuine critique of the course our civilization has been heading throughout the last century. Traditionalist writing at its best, it may not be the mindset I share, but it is a mindset I can understand and polemize with with respect.
It is stated that egalitarian, technological modernist society was formed in the woes of the last century which caused a major decline of culture, steepening of real growth, and effemination of men and society in a whole. It is a perplexing matter which seems to be much more complex than the model author built in the book, but once he moves away from politics and considerations on proper ways to develop a right society to the topic in the title - art, his knowledge, and analytical abilities shine much brighter. I like his outlook of skill and tradesmanship required to be a proper fine artist, architectural overview, and investigation of Artspeak and its role in the rise of Modernism.
Even though the thoughts on politics and democracy the author has are not very close to my views, they are cohesive, nicely expressed and fall in line with the other parts of the book comprising the saddening(or hopeful) outlook of the West, its values and a genuine critique of the course our civilization has been heading throughout the last century. Traditionalist writing at its best, it may not be the mindset I share, but it is a mindset I can understand and polemize with with respect.
January 16, 2024
The biggest critics of this book complain about the harsh rhetoric and "biased" condemnation of this book, but I find it rather refreshing. The "please be reasonable" crowd were not the intended audience, as far as I can tell. This book, instead, takes the view of "why be reasonable with the unreasonable" approach and I'm here for it.
Modernity does everything it can to sap the life out of you, and this is reflected in everything from the art to the architecture. Yes, you can be cordial with those who like modernity, but you do not have to, nor should you, entertain the soul-crushing foolishness of medern art. This book is about attacking modernity through the nonsense that has been peddled as art for several hundred years, and all the implications that come from that.
No, this book isnt for everyone, but I enjoy the fact that he is frank and direct with his criticisms. I think his view of the modern West having already fallen is likely true, but the beauty and rightness of Nature was not held up by the West, only expressed by it. Nature patiently waits for the next-comers to appreciate her as she is.
Modernity does everything it can to sap the life out of you, and this is reflected in everything from the art to the architecture. Yes, you can be cordial with those who like modernity, but you do not have to, nor should you, entertain the soul-crushing foolishness of medern art. This book is about attacking modernity through the nonsense that has been peddled as art for several hundred years, and all the implications that come from that.
No, this book isnt for everyone, but I enjoy the fact that he is frank and direct with his criticisms. I think his view of the modern West having already fallen is likely true, but the beauty and rightness of Nature was not held up by the West, only expressed by it. Nature patiently waits for the next-comers to appreciate her as she is.
March 23, 2022
All modern and postmodern is a trashy gimmick, but I guess we all knew that. Recover the faith and force of our European ancestors, and if its too late to save what was, lets build something new out of the eternal ways of our people.
Thats the gist of the book, argued passionately and with a thorough breakdown of our modern world, not only in art, but quite a few other things. Great book, enjoyed it immensly.
Thats the gist of the book, argued passionately and with a thorough breakdown of our modern world, not only in art, but quite a few other things. Great book, enjoyed it immensly.
July 13, 2023
Mediocre book with bad takes artificially inflating its appeal by targeting a niche audience with little interest in anything but validating their own opinions.
If you are anything other than far right this book wont make a single persuasive argument and if you are far right then this is little more than an exercise in literary masturbation.
There's only so much time in a day, lift some weights or read evola instead, it'll do you more good.
If you are anything other than far right this book wont make a single persuasive argument and if you are far right then this is little more than an exercise in literary masturbation.
There's only so much time in a day, lift some weights or read evola instead, it'll do you more good.
September 16, 2021
I agree with some of the criticism of modern art, but it lost me when it started advocating racism and violence among other things. It's interesting to see what an atheist ultraconservative thinks, how he tries to make a religion out of whatever traditions he deems holy, in hopes of filling the void Christianity has left...
November 18, 2018
Very comprehensive, well written, and enjoyable assessment of the miserable state of art and the wrong turns taken in the 20th century. I highly recommend it to all history/art/philosophy lovers or those generally dubious of contemporary trends in art and culture.
April 13, 2019
Brilliant!
June 6, 2025
Fantastic read.
August 2, 2022
Hard for me to review this book since I was disposed to agree with everything the author said. This traces the problem (why is modern art such a joke?) to a range of societal ills, and gives reasons for the fall. It also gives possible routes back to beauty, life, and self-assertion in western culture.
April 29, 2022
I've been following Heard via his Traditionalist Western Art page on FB for a long time. I'm a fan of his overall take on things. I'm sympathetic to where he's coming from, so I was one of the first people in line for this book.
It's bad. Very bad. It pains me to say that b/c I want to support like-minded people, but I can't in good conscience recommend this book. Yes, Heard has strong opinions, but his grasp of history is inadequate to say the least and his analysis is terrible. I might agree with some of his conclusions like, for example, that Budd Boetticher made awesome westerns, but really, so what?
Other conservatives/non-progressives/progressive critics have covered this territory in far more informed and entertaining a manner. Read Roger Scruton on beauty and art, Tom Wolfe's FROM BAUHAUS TO OUR HOUSE and THE PAINTED WORD, Camille Paglia's critiques of postmodernism, Bernard Rudofsky's ARCHITECTURE WITHOUT ARCHITECTS, James Stevens Curl's MAKING DYSTOPIA, the New Urbanists, Paul Johnson's history of modern art, B.R. Myers's A READER'S MANIFESTO, to name a few. Yes, not all of those writers are "based" or "traditionalist" -- some would recoil at Heard's politics -- but all will give you a better sense of how the arts have become corrupt and point you in a better direction than Heard's book.
It's too bad b/c a single-volume work that summarizes the traditionalist case against 20th-century modernist art and its progeny -- the kind of thing you can recommend to your bluepill friends -- would be worth having. This, regretfully, isn't that book.
It's bad. Very bad. It pains me to say that b/c I want to support like-minded people, but I can't in good conscience recommend this book. Yes, Heard has strong opinions, but his grasp of history is inadequate to say the least and his analysis is terrible. I might agree with some of his conclusions like, for example, that Budd Boetticher made awesome westerns, but really, so what?
Other conservatives/non-progressives/progressive critics have covered this territory in far more informed and entertaining a manner. Read Roger Scruton on beauty and art, Tom Wolfe's FROM BAUHAUS TO OUR HOUSE and THE PAINTED WORD, Camille Paglia's critiques of postmodernism, Bernard Rudofsky's ARCHITECTURE WITHOUT ARCHITECTS, James Stevens Curl's MAKING DYSTOPIA, the New Urbanists, Paul Johnson's history of modern art, B.R. Myers's A READER'S MANIFESTO, to name a few. Yes, not all of those writers are "based" or "traditionalist" -- some would recoil at Heard's politics -- but all will give you a better sense of how the arts have become corrupt and point you in a better direction than Heard's book.
It's too bad b/c a single-volume work that summarizes the traditionalist case against 20th-century modernist art and its progeny -- the kind of thing you can recommend to your bluepill friends -- would be worth having. This, regretfully, isn't that book.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews