What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #102
Art History: A Very Short Introduction
Art history encompasses the study of the history and development of painting, sculpture and the other visual arts. In this Very Short Introduction, Dana Arnold presents an introduction to the issues, debates, and artefacts that make up art history. Beginning with a consideration of what art history is, she explains what makes the subject distinctive from other fields of study, and also explores the emergence of social histories of art (such as Feminist ArtHistory and Queer Art History). Using a wide range of images, she goes on to explore key aspects of the discipline including how we write, present, read, and look at art, and the impact this has on our understanding of art history.This second edition includes a new chapter on global art histories, considering how the traditional emphasis on periods and styles in art originated in western art and can obscure other critical approaches and artwork from non-western cultures. Arnold also discusses the relationship between art and history, and the ways in which art can tell a different history from the one narrated by texts.ABOUT THE Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
168 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
157 people are currently reading
1786 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
March 2, 2025
Oxford's Very Short Introduction series briefly examines a given subject. In this introduction to art history, art historian Dana Arnold provides a helpful overview. The book's strongest points include the birth of art history and art criticism as distinct disciplines and a discussion of art and different schools of thought.
The inception of art history can be traced to the publication of Roman historian Pliny's Natural History. It is a multi-volume work that survived intact from antiquity. Although not exclusively concerned with art history, scholars have used Pliny's work to help identify classical art. During the Renaissance, the study of Pliny's work "helped to ensure the continuance of the classical tradition, as artistic status was enhanced by knowledge of the art of ancient Greece and Rome."
The foundational text of art history is Italian painter and architect Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Artists (1550). Vasari's work focused on the artists of the Italian Renaissance. His chronicle established the timespan designations, such as the Early and High Renaissance. Vasari's chronicle was primarily descriptive, not an analytical study of Renaissance art.
In Lives of the Artist, Vasari used the following criteria for discussing art: Disegno or "the art of good draughtsmanship or design," Natura -- "art as an imitation of nature," Grazia or the quality of grace in artwork, Decoro or "artistic decorum or appropriateness," and finally, Maniera, referring "either to an artist's personal style or to that of a specific school of artists."
By the eighteenth century, art history had evolved to focus less on the artists and more on art, especially its aesthetic qualities and cultural context. German art historian Johann Joachim Winckelmann saw the art of ancient Greece as the "pinnacle of artistic achievement in terms of the representation of beauty and perfection." In Winckelmann's Imitation of the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks (1755), he wrote that there "is but one way for the moderns to become great, and perhaps unequaled,...by imitating the ancients."
Ernst Gombrich is perhaps the most prominent twentieth-century art historian. Gombrich's The Story of Art (1950) remains a standard work. Winckelmann's study "had to rely on prints and engravings." Due to twentieth-century advances in photography, Gombrich studied art in its original place.
In the decades following World War II, Clement Greenberg was one of the most prominent art critics. One of Greenberg's best-known essays is the 1939 "Avant-Garde and Kitsch." By avant-garde, the artist, musician, filmmaker, or writer would remain isolated within his craft, pursuing an artistic "absolute" and producing art that only the initiated could understand. Kitsch was essentially any art that deviated from avant-garde standards. Arnold charges Greenberg with establishing a "privileged domain of high art" that excluded "the work of women artists, minority groups, and elements of popular culture." However, since Greenberg dubbed The New Yorker "high-class kitsch" and John Steinbeck as a case of "borderline" kitsch, he showed himself to be an equal opportunity excluder.
In one of the book's best chapters, Arnold summarizes various thinkers' impact on how art is perceived or produced. Kant's Critique of Judgment (1790) argued that in judging art, "there could be a range of aesthetic taste," and within a specific taste, the judgment of an artwork should be "made in terms of its beauty and purpose." This meant that Kant rejected Winckelmann's notion that only modern art imitating ancient Greece could be considered great. It also meant that Kant rejected Greenberg's dichotomy of avant-garde and kitsch. Kant's philosophy of judging art helps make sense of professional criticism of popular culture. A film critic with an artistic pedigree can legitimately praise an action or comic book film if it is executed well and judged according to its genre.
As Arnold describes the interplay of art history and philosophy, it's clear that Hegel has been the most influential philosopher on how art is perceived. In contrast to Kant, Hegel interpreted history (and art's place in it) in the broadest sense. For Hegel, history was the interplay between "the spirit of the nation, or Volksgeist," and "the spirit of the age, or Zeitgeist." Gombrich applied Hegel's concept of the Zeitgeist to portray art as reacting within the context of its time to speak for its time. This is a helpful framework for understanding art in its historical context. However, it also makes asserting anything about an artist or artwork elusive.
Much more could be said about this helpful introduction to art history. It provides convenient summaries that make art history accessible to the non-specialist. Some of what's presented would be challenging to pull together for general readers.
The inception of art history can be traced to the publication of Roman historian Pliny's Natural History. It is a multi-volume work that survived intact from antiquity. Although not exclusively concerned with art history, scholars have used Pliny's work to help identify classical art. During the Renaissance, the study of Pliny's work "helped to ensure the continuance of the classical tradition, as artistic status was enhanced by knowledge of the art of ancient Greece and Rome."
The foundational text of art history is Italian painter and architect Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Artists (1550). Vasari's work focused on the artists of the Italian Renaissance. His chronicle established the timespan designations, such as the Early and High Renaissance. Vasari's chronicle was primarily descriptive, not an analytical study of Renaissance art.
In Lives of the Artist, Vasari used the following criteria for discussing art: Disegno or "the art of good draughtsmanship or design," Natura -- "art as an imitation of nature," Grazia or the quality of grace in artwork, Decoro or "artistic decorum or appropriateness," and finally, Maniera, referring "either to an artist's personal style or to that of a specific school of artists."
By the eighteenth century, art history had evolved to focus less on the artists and more on art, especially its aesthetic qualities and cultural context. German art historian Johann Joachim Winckelmann saw the art of ancient Greece as the "pinnacle of artistic achievement in terms of the representation of beauty and perfection." In Winckelmann's Imitation of the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks (1755), he wrote that there "is but one way for the moderns to become great, and perhaps unequaled,...by imitating the ancients."
Ernst Gombrich is perhaps the most prominent twentieth-century art historian. Gombrich's The Story of Art (1950) remains a standard work. Winckelmann's study "had to rely on prints and engravings." Due to twentieth-century advances in photography, Gombrich studied art in its original place.
In the decades following World War II, Clement Greenberg was one of the most prominent art critics. One of Greenberg's best-known essays is the 1939 "Avant-Garde and Kitsch." By avant-garde, the artist, musician, filmmaker, or writer would remain isolated within his craft, pursuing an artistic "absolute" and producing art that only the initiated could understand. Kitsch was essentially any art that deviated from avant-garde standards. Arnold charges Greenberg with establishing a "privileged domain of high art" that excluded "the work of women artists, minority groups, and elements of popular culture." However, since Greenberg dubbed The New Yorker "high-class kitsch" and John Steinbeck as a case of "borderline" kitsch, he showed himself to be an equal opportunity excluder.
In one of the book's best chapters, Arnold summarizes various thinkers' impact on how art is perceived or produced. Kant's Critique of Judgment (1790) argued that in judging art, "there could be a range of aesthetic taste," and within a specific taste, the judgment of an artwork should be "made in terms of its beauty and purpose." This meant that Kant rejected Winckelmann's notion that only modern art imitating ancient Greece could be considered great. It also meant that Kant rejected Greenberg's dichotomy of avant-garde and kitsch. Kant's philosophy of judging art helps make sense of professional criticism of popular culture. A film critic with an artistic pedigree can legitimately praise an action or comic book film if it is executed well and judged according to its genre.
As Arnold describes the interplay of art history and philosophy, it's clear that Hegel has been the most influential philosopher on how art is perceived. In contrast to Kant, Hegel interpreted history (and art's place in it) in the broadest sense. For Hegel, history was the interplay between "the spirit of the nation, or Volksgeist," and "the spirit of the age, or Zeitgeist." Gombrich applied Hegel's concept of the Zeitgeist to portray art as reacting within the context of its time to speak for its time. This is a helpful framework for understanding art in its historical context. However, it also makes asserting anything about an artist or artwork elusive.
Much more could be said about this helpful introduction to art history. It provides convenient summaries that make art history accessible to the non-specialist. Some of what's presented would be challenging to pull together for general readers.
Read
November 1, 2023This is another book, like The Ancient Olympic games, that I read because it begins with the letter A.
It is mostly an introduction to the idea of Art History, or the history of Art History, rather than a brief Art History itself. I felt it was a transitional text, in that the author talked about a global Art History but overwhelmingly the discussion was about European Artists and the 'western' Art History tradition, even though she was aware that this was problematic.
She wrote at one stage about the overlap between Anthropology and Art History when considering, for example, the statues on Easter Island. I felt though that this idea did not go far enough, if we consider the Roman copies of Greek statues that, in the western tradition, we view as classical perfection, the originals would have been cult objects tucked away in the temple buildings which were their homes and were seen by very few people or by many people but on limited occasions at certain festivals.
She encourages us to think back to Vermeer's use of everyday objects as 'signs', it becomes clear that our ability to 'read' images is culturally and temporally determined (p.113), in the context of a discussion of pop art and the use in that of pictures of consumer goods or popular icons, and I feel that, we view, or increasingly will Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroes as anthropologists just as much as we try to read Vermeer paintings, learning to read his language of signs and objects. Which led me both back to her reading of Marx seeing Art as marking social hierarchies (I don't understand Warhol's 'campbell soup' therefore I feel marginalised, excluded, and inferior to the cultural elites who understand the role of tinned soup in post WWII USA).
She ends by saying whether we are looking at a Byzantine Icon, a 17th century Dutch genre picture, Pop Art, a photograph, or computer, it is the interaction between the viewer and object that gives art its meaning and decides the the way in which the visual is read (p.115) which is vaguely nice sounding but she had already told us on the previous page that Warhol has been read as celebrating and ridiculing America middle class values. So we can see Art as read both in a way specific to a culture at a point of time yet also within that culture being read in contradictory ways . Perhaps in this way too, this little book is transitional, hinting at the questions that have replaced the certainties of a previous era. Is there a boundary now between appropriation and influence, or is it only a question of your perspective.
There is an overlap with the Ancient Olympic games, statues were made of victors of the games, but at later dates the bronze ones were melted down for their cash value and the marble ones burnt to make lime. Our values are impermanent. She suggests that if the Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonardo da Vinci that it would still maintain it's status and value, which amused me because precisely the opposite was indicated when the origins of the Salvator Mundi were discussed.
pop art - vermeer - reading images = form of knowledge - marx power - can we see 'art' from other places and times or do we inevitably misread it?
It is mostly an introduction to the idea of Art History, or the history of Art History, rather than a brief Art History itself. I felt it was a transitional text, in that the author talked about a global Art History but overwhelmingly the discussion was about European Artists and the 'western' Art History tradition, even though she was aware that this was problematic.
She wrote at one stage about the overlap between Anthropology and Art History when considering, for example, the statues on Easter Island. I felt though that this idea did not go far enough, if we consider the Roman copies of Greek statues that, in the western tradition, we view as classical perfection, the originals would have been cult objects tucked away in the temple buildings which were their homes and were seen by very few people or by many people but on limited occasions at certain festivals.
She encourages us to think back to Vermeer's use of everyday objects as 'signs', it becomes clear that our ability to 'read' images is culturally and temporally determined (p.113), in the context of a discussion of pop art and the use in that of pictures of consumer goods or popular icons, and I feel that, we view, or increasingly will Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroes as anthropologists just as much as we try to read Vermeer paintings, learning to read his language of signs and objects. Which led me both back to her reading of Marx seeing Art as marking social hierarchies (I don't understand Warhol's 'campbell soup' therefore I feel marginalised, excluded, and inferior to the cultural elites who understand the role of tinned soup in post WWII USA).
She ends by saying whether we are looking at a Byzantine Icon, a 17th century Dutch genre picture, Pop Art, a photograph, or computer, it is the interaction between the viewer and object that gives art its meaning and decides the the way in which the visual is read (p.115) which is vaguely nice sounding but she had already told us on the previous page that Warhol has been read as celebrating and ridiculing America middle class values. So we can see Art as read both in a way specific to a culture at a point of time yet also within that culture being read in contradictory ways . Perhaps in this way too, this little book is transitional, hinting at the questions that have replaced the certainties of a previous era. Is there a boundary now between appropriation and influence, or is it only a question of your perspective.
There is an overlap with the Ancient Olympic games, statues were made of victors of the games, but at later dates the bronze ones were melted down for their cash value and the marble ones burnt to make lime. Our values are impermanent. She suggests that if the Mona Lisa was not painted by Leonardo da Vinci that it would still maintain it's status and value, which amused me because precisely the opposite was indicated when the origins of the Salvator Mundi were discussed.
pop art - vermeer - reading images = form of knowledge - marx power - can we see 'art' from other places and times or do we inevitably misread it?
August 28, 2013
Art history still gets presented in popular and even borderline scholarly accounts as a sequence of dead white male geniuses, and any sensible introduction to how art history is studied needs to acknowledge the focus on individual genius, on European art, on 'high art' and on male creators that has dominated the field and offer correctives where needed.
It's amusing how many reviewers of this book are offended by the author's 'feminism' or 'anti-whitey' attitude - seriously, guys, there are circles in which Arnold's very balanced and valid call for a more inclusive way of studying art history would be considered not just moderate but downright innocuous. Let's not forget, Arnold also deconstructs other ideas like high art/pop culture, art/craft, progress in art and so forth. I think the fact that so many people pick on her criticism of the Eurocentric/patriarchal mode speaks more about them than the quality of this slim volume.
Colour illustrations would have been nice, but there are copious links to online collections.
I particularly liked the two collections Arnold 'curates' in the book to show how any collection of works can be interrogated and understood in different ways. I appreciate the fact that Arnold returns eventually to the primacy of individual aesthetic appreciation of art, but wish she had spent more time discussing aesthetic theories/approaches, although perhaps that is better dealt with as the subject of a separate volume.
I just wish more of the books in this series were willing to step outside the classic Eurocentric mould! They still contain valuable information and concepts, but like the one I am reading about comedy at present, they are too prone to the same old < Renaissance > Enlightenment > Modernity > Oh hey some Arabs and Hindus and Chinese did stuff too! >> pattern.
It's amusing how many reviewers of this book are offended by the author's 'feminism' or 'anti-whitey' attitude - seriously, guys, there are circles in which Arnold's very balanced and valid call for a more inclusive way of studying art history would be considered not just moderate but downright innocuous. Let's not forget, Arnold also deconstructs other ideas like high art/pop culture, art/craft, progress in art and so forth. I think the fact that so many people pick on her criticism of the Eurocentric/patriarchal mode speaks more about them than the quality of this slim volume.
Colour illustrations would have been nice, but there are copious links to online collections.
I particularly liked the two collections Arnold 'curates' in the book to show how any collection of works can be interrogated and understood in different ways. I appreciate the fact that Arnold returns eventually to the primacy of individual aesthetic appreciation of art, but wish she had spent more time discussing aesthetic theories/approaches, although perhaps that is better dealt with as the subject of a separate volume.
I just wish more of the books in this series were willing to step outside the classic Eurocentric mould! They still contain valuable information and concepts, but like the one I am reading about comedy at present, they are too prone to the same old < Renaissance > Enlightenment > Modernity > Oh hey some Arabs and Hindus and Chinese did stuff too! >> pattern.
September 26, 2023
This booklet is precisely what it says it is a VERY short introduction. It mostly introduces key terms that you will study in Art History 101 and explains them concisely by giving examples (which I appreciate). To some, it may seem that it is too superficial and brief, but this booklet equips you with the main terms for you to continue your research after you read this.
It is very Eurocentric, and the focus is on Western art, which the author acknowledges, but does nothing to remedy that.
It is very Eurocentric, and the focus is on Western art, which the author acknowledges, but does nothing to remedy that.
August 15, 2019
Art History: A Very Short Introduction
بينما كنت أجمع ملاحظاتي واستعد لكتابة المراجعة، نشرت صديقة اقتباسًا عبر حسابها في تويتر ويا الله كم هو منسجم ومتناسب مع ما أنهيت قراءته للتو:
ليس الفن وليد نظريات، بل النظريات تتولد من العمل الفني، وليس هناك فن بل فنّان.
ــــ يحيى حقّي
تبدأ الكاتبة بالقول أننا نحب أن ننظر إلى الفن على أنه أزلي . لذا كيف يمكن تأريخه ..
في البداية شرح لما هو الفن .... نماذج من عصور مختلفة .
تذكر الكاتبة في أكثر من مناسبة و"باستهجان"، أن الفن العالمي يقصد به دائمًا الفن في الغرب الذي أنتج في الغرب (رسم ونحت فقط في الغالب) وهذا الغرب يمثل أوروبا فقط لأن أمريكا لم تكن اكتشفت بعد حينها
ةهذا الفن أنتج في مجتمعات ذكورية صرفة، لا تريد أن ترى إلا انعكاسًا لنفسها وتهمش كل فنون الآخرين، وتصنفها كفنون بدائية وشعبية ساذجة ..إلخ، ولا ترقى لمستويات الفن الذي أنتجه الرجل الأبيض لذي يرى فنه فقط ويهمش الحضارات الأخرى وفنونها، ويشدد الكتاب على أن الفن الذي أنتج في الغرب لا يتجاوز عمره 2500 عام، ومع هذا يتم تجاهل كل الحضارات التي ظهرت في كل القارات خاصة العالم القديم والتي يتجاوز تاريخ الفن فيه 5 آلاف عام .. وهو أمر يجب أن يتوقف ويكتب تاريخ الفن من جديد ويكتب تاريخ الفن الغربي كتاريخ للفن الغربي فقط وليس كتاريخ للفن ككل ..
وفي نفس السياق، هناك حديث مسهب حول تهميش فن المرأة واعتبارها بلا إبداع بالمجمل وتجاهل كامل لها ولكل ما قدمته .
في الفصول التالية استعراض لتاريخ الفن متى كتب لأول مرة (حدث هذا في عصر الإمبراطورية الرومانية بالمناسبة ) وصولًا لعصر النهضة وحتى عصرنا هذا ..
وكيف يتم عرض الفن واستعراض لأفكار كبار الفلاسفة وآرائهم بالفن مثل هيجل وماركس وكانط ..إلخ ورؤيتنا للفن وكيفية قراءته .
.
لا أريد استعراض كل محتويات الكتاب لكن كانت قراءة هذا الكتاب واحدة من أفضل تجاربي في سلسلة : مقدمة قصيرة جدًا .
بينما كنت أجمع ملاحظاتي واستعد لكتابة المراجعة، نشرت صديقة اقتباسًا عبر حسابها في تويتر ويا الله كم هو منسجم ومتناسب مع ما أنهيت قراءته للتو:
ليس الفن وليد نظريات، بل النظريات تتولد من العمل الفني، وليس هناك فن بل فنّان.
ــــ يحيى حقّي
تبدأ الكاتبة بالقول أننا نحب أن ننظر إلى الفن على أنه أزلي . لذا كيف يمكن تأريخه ..
في البداية شرح لما هو الفن .... نماذج من عصور مختلفة .
تذكر الكاتبة في أكثر من مناسبة و"باستهجان"، أن الفن العالمي يقصد به دائمًا الفن في الغرب الذي أنتج في الغرب (رسم ونحت فقط في الغالب) وهذا الغرب يمثل أوروبا فقط لأن أمريكا لم تكن اكتشفت بعد حينها
ةهذا الفن أنتج في مجتمعات ذكورية صرفة، لا تريد أن ترى إلا انعكاسًا لنفسها وتهمش كل فنون الآخرين، وتصنفها كفنون بدائية وشعبية ساذجة ..إلخ، ولا ترقى لمستويات الفن الذي أنتجه الرجل الأبيض لذي يرى فنه فقط ويهمش الحضارات الأخرى وفنونها، ويشدد الكتاب على أن الفن الذي أنتج في الغرب لا يتجاوز عمره 2500 عام، ومع هذا يتم تجاهل كل الحضارات التي ظهرت في كل القارات خاصة العالم القديم والتي يتجاوز تاريخ الفن فيه 5 آلاف عام .. وهو أمر يجب أن يتوقف ويكتب تاريخ الفن من جديد ويكتب تاريخ الفن الغربي كتاريخ للفن الغربي فقط وليس كتاريخ للفن ككل ..
وفي نفس السياق، هناك حديث مسهب حول تهميش فن المرأة واعتبارها بلا إبداع بالمجمل وتجاهل كامل لها ولكل ما قدمته .
في الفصول التالية استعراض لتاريخ الفن متى كتب لأول مرة (حدث هذا في عصر الإمبراطورية الرومانية بالمناسبة ) وصولًا لعصر النهضة وحتى عصرنا هذا ..
وكيف يتم عرض الفن واستعراض لأفكار كبار الفلاسفة وآرائهم بالفن مثل هيجل وماركس وكانط ..إلخ ورؤيتنا للفن وكيفية قراءته .
.
لا أريد استعراض كل محتويات الكتاب لكن كانت قراءة هذا الكتاب واحدة من أفضل تجاربي في سلسلة : مقدمة قصيرة جدًا .
February 28, 2016
It took me a while to get through this book even though it's relatively short. The reason being mostly that I had picked it up as a way to explore whether or not I was interested in studying Art History more formally. It is definitely a good and thorough book for its length so my star rating is purely a reflection on my personal interest in the subject (perhaps that's not quite fair then?)
I suppose you can't really take the history out of Art History. And I do like history. But I suppose I like being told it a little bit more than I like getting into the nitty gritty details of considering the more meta tale of how history is written, who is doing it and for what purpose (feminist history, non-western, or post-colonial perspective, etc.)
Having completed other Master's level modules on things like 'the History of the Global' it made me more aware that studying Art History could be more about the phenomenological side of the historical perspectives rather than specifically and directly about the Art. Which isn't to say I don't agree that it's very important to have people passionately asking these questions and re-writing the history we tell ourselves. That is in fact the history I want to read!
This book has helped me to recognise that my interest is closer to the technical sides of art positioned in their social and historical context, just as we needed to do at GCSE and A-Level, than the subject of Art History itself, and certainly I think I've had plenty of the philosophy of aesthetics in my bachelor degree.
Despite all that this book does have enough of what keeps me interested and things that I did want to learn throughout, as well as of course learn things I didn't necessarily feel I wanted to learn at the time, but, who knows, they could come in handy in the future if I was interested enough to retain it!
I suppose you can't really take the history out of Art History. And I do like history. But I suppose I like being told it a little bit more than I like getting into the nitty gritty details of considering the more meta tale of how history is written, who is doing it and for what purpose (feminist history, non-western, or post-colonial perspective, etc.)
Having completed other Master's level modules on things like 'the History of the Global' it made me more aware that studying Art History could be more about the phenomenological side of the historical perspectives rather than specifically and directly about the Art. Which isn't to say I don't agree that it's very important to have people passionately asking these questions and re-writing the history we tell ourselves. That is in fact the history I want to read!
This book has helped me to recognise that my interest is closer to the technical sides of art positioned in their social and historical context, just as we needed to do at GCSE and A-Level, than the subject of Art History itself, and certainly I think I've had plenty of the philosophy of aesthetics in my bachelor degree.
Despite all that this book does have enough of what keeps me interested and things that I did want to learn throughout, as well as of course learn things I didn't necessarily feel I wanted to learn at the time, but, who knows, they could come in handy in the future if I was interested enough to retain it!
April 2, 2018
A very short introduction to a very vast topic. It felt a bit like a series of lectures stitched together and it lost me at times. However there was quite a lot of food for thought here for a complete novice, like me, who wants to learn more about the subject.
November 13, 2021
Breve pero divertida disertación sobre el arte, en un intento por introducir a lectores y lectoras que no estén familiarizados en el mundillo, al tiempo que explora interesantes cuestiones relativas a la teoría del arte más estrictamente académicas, sin perder el tono didáctico y ameno.
May 13, 2013
Caveat emptor: this is about the discipline of art history, not about the history of art. That said, it's a very nice piece about that discipline. It briefly tells you what art historians have done and what Arnold thinks they ought to do. Since it's a book written by an academic humanist who made her name in the 90s, it's massively and turgidly ideological--it's not enough to say that art history should pay attention to, you know, women and people who aren't pasty, you also have to self-flagellate and (more offensive) flagellate others for failing to do so, as if you would have known better before feminism. It's really a disgrace that Vasari didn't include more women artists in his work, right? At times Arnold comes close to suggesting that what art historians should do is limited entirely to this flagellation.
Thankfully, she has more interesting things to say than that, and had she said them at greater length and skipped the 'KILL ALL THE WHITE MEN'* stuff, the book could have been truly excellent. Well, except for one thing: her readings of philosophical aesthetics bear roughly the same relation to the actual thoughts of those aestheticians as Braque's cubist violins bear to, well, violins, except that Braque meant to do that. Her own theory is a good one, though, and looks more or less like what lit types like me call reader response theory mixed with an appreciation for that fact that artworks really do exist.
The writing's occasionally horrific, but that's the be expected.
*sample strangeness: "instead of calling for a fundamental shift in art practice and appreciation, [Clement] Greenberg now worked to exclude from the privileged domain of high art... the work of women artists, minority groups, and elements of popular culture." I have no doubt that Greenberg's actual pronouncements may have had the *effect* of 'excluding' women and minority artists, simply because they weren't working in his preferred style. But to say that he "worked to exclude" them is something else all together, implying a kind of VAST CONSERVATIVE CONSPIRACY of the type better left to the conservatives who actually believe in vast conspiracies, because then they don't have to face up to their/our own complicity or the horrific consequences of the things they/we love.
Thankfully, she has more interesting things to say than that, and had she said them at greater length and skipped the 'KILL ALL THE WHITE MEN'* stuff, the book could have been truly excellent. Well, except for one thing: her readings of philosophical aesthetics bear roughly the same relation to the actual thoughts of those aestheticians as Braque's cubist violins bear to, well, violins, except that Braque meant to do that. Her own theory is a good one, though, and looks more or less like what lit types like me call reader response theory mixed with an appreciation for that fact that artworks really do exist.
The writing's occasionally horrific, but that's the be expected.
*sample strangeness: "instead of calling for a fundamental shift in art practice and appreciation, [Clement] Greenberg now worked to exclude from the privileged domain of high art... the work of women artists, minority groups, and elements of popular culture." I have no doubt that Greenberg's actual pronouncements may have had the *effect* of 'excluding' women and minority artists, simply because they weren't working in his preferred style. But to say that he "worked to exclude" them is something else all together, implying a kind of VAST CONSERVATIVE CONSPIRACY of the type better left to the conservatives who actually believe in vast conspiracies, because then they don't have to face up to their/our own complicity or the horrific consequences of the things they/we love.
September 14, 2015
Unfortunately the author, in her determination not to let the history of art become "a list of white men" (I can't remember the exact words, and I don't have a copy in front of me) presents a slightly distorted picture of what people expect. If you are looking for a book which will actually teach you about artists in history (as one would hope), look elsewhere.
November 18, 2024
Läst i min andra kurs i konst- och bildvetenskap som fördjupar teori och metod. Det är precis vad denn bok behandlar, teori och metod. Den tar inte upp eller fördjupar särskilt många verk utan talar om dem grundläggande för att ge exempel på olika teorier & metoder. Den är just som titeln säger, en introduktion.
Boken diskuterar sätt för "att tänka kring konst", "att skriva konsthistoria", "att presentera konst", "att läsa konst" och "att titta på konst".
Det är ur en historisk synpunkt som beskriver konstvetenskapens utveckling, interaktion med andra discipliner, paradigmskiften, nya användningsområden och förhållningssätt gentemot konstvetenskapliga termer för att tala om konst såsom de stora konstnärerna som "genierna", "primitiver", ikonologi, ikonografi etc. Även teknologiska begrepp som skiss, tempera, oljemåleri, imprimatura etc.
Boken ger ett universellt perspektiv och diskuterar vilka olika konsttraditioner som finns och hur västvärldens konst har kommit att dominera konsthistoria. Också konstinstitutionernas historiska utveckling och funktioner för kultur, konst, nationell identitet...
Boken diskuterar sätt för "att tänka kring konst", "att skriva konsthistoria", "att presentera konst", "att läsa konst" och "att titta på konst".
Det är ur en historisk synpunkt som beskriver konstvetenskapens utveckling, interaktion med andra discipliner, paradigmskiften, nya användningsområden och förhållningssätt gentemot konstvetenskapliga termer för att tala om konst såsom de stora konstnärerna som "genierna", "primitiver", ikonologi, ikonografi etc. Även teknologiska begrepp som skiss, tempera, oljemåleri, imprimatura etc.
Boken ger ett universellt perspektiv och diskuterar vilka olika konsttraditioner som finns och hur västvärldens konst har kommit att dominera konsthistoria. Också konstinstitutionernas historiska utveckling och funktioner för kultur, konst, nationell identitet...
January 5, 2025
It lives up to its name. Pretty short and simplistic. The only silver line that sticks with you afterwards is that art needs to be understood and correlated in the context of its time (as all works of art are influenced by a specific zeitgeist). Lacks fruitiness.
November 29, 2022
Not bad!
October 2, 2022
I knew this book was right for me when I saw that an image of Super Mario had been included (beautiful). It seems a decent enough intro to the topic, although I did get a bit bored by the end. Also there was a moment where the author talked about looking at art through feminist theory and then immediately kind of awkwardly tacked-on an implication that queer theory recently invented the idea of gender being socially constructed rather than biologically destined and I thought that was weird and short-sighted considering it was a core part of feminist theory already (feminists don't believe gender is biologically destined!).
Anyway yeah it's alright.
Anyway yeah it's alright.
June 12, 2022
This was ok, I was very tempted to 2 star this on the grounds that it was quite repetitive in parts and I found some of the narrative and suggestions to be irritating in their implications of the short falls and current failings in art history canon and narrative. However I cannot fault that I definitely did learn new things while reading this and am probably biased against some of the ‘irritating suggestions’ made.
June 27, 2012
A goof "short" book altogether
For me it will serve as a gnrl reference point to "shady" parts of modern history I am not aware of. Still it will also provide a kind of perspective on Historical figure of critic's who were rather prevalent on earlier times.
Lest I forget to mention that I got it as a "give-away" from a sunday paper. It's printed in pulp paper, the interpratation seems fair but it's not that good in binding.
If for nothing else many ppl can use it for the reference of net searches for famous museums in both EU & America.
Still I blv it's rather poor in general. Perhaps the foreign edition was much more "filled" with picures. .. In colour. Anyway since I got the very basic edition I can't really make a comparison
October 5, 2025
Es el tipo de libro que me habría encantado leer al comienzo de mi carrera (Historia del Arte, sorpresa 🫢). Plantea nuevas formas de entender el arte y de reflexionar sobre él, no solo como una disciplina de conocimiento férrea e inamovible, sino como un campo en el que las representaciones históricas pueden evolucionar del mismo modo que lo hacen nuestras ideas.
A día de hoy se me queda un poco flojo, pero teniendo en cuenta que es de principios de los 2000, me parece un acercamiento adecuado para empezar a investigar sobre Historia del Arte, por algo el título tiene la palabra "breve".
A día de hoy se me queda un poco flojo, pero teniendo en cuenta que es de principios de los 2000, me parece un acercamiento adecuado para empezar a investigar sobre Historia del Arte, por algo el título tiene la palabra "breve".
January 23, 2024
A good overview of “art history” as a practice. It’s not an overview of the actual history of art. The author talks about a lot of interesting ideas! I consider it a good starting point for my own study of art history. Goes over interesting thought about how art history is told, how art is looked at over time, intersections of philosophy and art etc etc
April 16, 2021
Den svenska översättningen är svår att följa och har en hel del grammatiska fel smak stavfel. Jag skulle argumentera att det finns bättre introduktioner till konstvetenskap, och den är inte till för den som vill lära sig något om konst. Snarare behandlas mer tekniska frågor, som hur vi skriver om, talar om, ser på och tänker kring konst.
November 10, 2022
Cartea de față este concepută ca o introducere în problemele și dezbaterile care alcătuiesc disciplina istoriei artei și care reies din preocupările centrale ale istoriei artei – demersul de a identifica, a clasifica, a interpreta, a descrie și a gândi operele de artă. Modalitățile în care istoria artei a abordat aceste sarcini s-au schimbat de-a lungul vremii.
Aceste atitudini schimbate față de parametrii istoriei artei și față de modul în care istoriile pot interoga subiectul vizual au ridicat întrebări în privința prezentării istoriei artei vizuale în formă scrisă și a limitelor pe care limbajul verbal le-a impus capacității noastre de a face acest lucru. În
ultimii ani, importanța relativă a rolului artistului, subiectului și privitorului în demersul artistic a fost și ea reevaluată. La rândul lor, aceste chestiuni ridică semne de întrebare despre preocuparea noastră față de autor, despre autenticitate și progresia liniară definită cronologic, toate acestea fiind elemente care au constituit canonul tradițional al istoriei artei, probabil singurul mod de a privi, a analiza și a istoriciza arta.
Aceste atitudini schimbate față de parametrii istoriei artei și față de modul în care istoriile pot interoga subiectul vizual au ridicat întrebări în privința prezentării istoriei artei vizuale în formă scrisă și a limitelor pe care limbajul verbal le-a impus capacității noastre de a face acest lucru. În
ultimii ani, importanța relativă a rolului artistului, subiectului și privitorului în demersul artistic a fost și ea reevaluată. La rândul lor, aceste chestiuni ridică semne de întrebare despre preocuparea noastră față de autor, despre autenticitate și progresia liniară definită cronologic, toate acestea fiind elemente care au constituit canonul tradițional al istoriei artei, probabil singurul mod de a privi, a analiza și a istoriciza arta.
December 1, 2022
A short, accessible guide with a slightly academic style to the issues in the discipline of art history but unlike other specialist texts, clearly written for the public. Much to learn from this book* but readers should note the better organized chapters are in the first half of the book. If you have access to the ebook version (like through a library account), you will have colour photos which add to the experience.
*a brief intro to the key features of the discipline (as opposed to art appreciation and visual culture), important pioneers in the field (Pliny the Elder, Vasari, Winckelmann), art history beyond Eurocentrism, the role of presentation (museums), thinkers on aesthetics and cultural production, common critical theories for interpretation, and a couple pages on the material and form of artwork.
*a brief intro to the key features of the discipline (as opposed to art appreciation and visual culture), important pioneers in the field (Pliny the Elder, Vasari, Winckelmann), art history beyond Eurocentrism, the role of presentation (museums), thinkers on aesthetics and cultural production, common critical theories for interpretation, and a couple pages on the material and form of artwork.
October 29, 2013
“A thing of beauty is a joy forever.” says Keats. I read Art History: A Very Short Introduction by Dana Arnold. The book was about introducing the reader to the issues and debates that make up the discipline of art history and that arise from art history’s central concerns like identifying, interpreting, describing, and thinking about works of art. The purpose of the book was to give a clear, concise discussion on the complex diversity of ways in which we observe art, how much we can learn from art, and understand its relationship to ourselves. The book was one hundred and twelve pages long. Because of how short the book is, the author intended to produce a straight-forward view but ends up sounding like she is arguing about nothing. I think Arnold’s stated reasons for writing are unworthy because her motives are less than scholarly, due to her objective being so clear in the introduction, then gradually becomes subjective. I find this piece of literature to be important but also, it beats around the bush by using terminology that is not even in the glossary, and should have been. Arnold has written an extensive amount of books regarding art history, especially in the viewpoint of Great Britain. The Art History was published by Oxford University Press Incorporated in 2004 as a series of short introductions to various subjects. Each of these miniature books has taken on a Nancy Drew approach of writing where unknown authors write terrible books for a pyramid-scheme profit, as the epitome of a starving artist.
The author approaches and organizes the material by offering a chronological and thematic coverage of a broad range of issues connected to the theme of art history. The authors research appears adequate because she includes a list of illustrations, references, a full glossary of terms, further information which includes a list of website addresses for galleries and museums and an index. She has employed primary resources connected with the subject like actual pictures of the artwork in black and white. However, the artwork would have been easier to read in colour. Though my criticism is harsh, other authors would have included more detail, despite it being a short book. The author even remarks that any omissions or errors are her own. The author does not present footnotes at the bottom of the pages and loosely supports the statements she makes. Her writing uses a first person viewpoint which is annoying and unprofessional for a history book. I feel that this work is of no value to a historian seeking to reconstruct the past because of how little the book is and how much already know information is used. It is absolutely something that an elementary schooler would understand, even they would understand the over-the-top, unnecessary vocabulary.
The author displays prejudices because of the side notes hse makes and off topic commentary. This is one of the first books I have read, never mind a brief history book, where I noticed such subtle bias. Arnold tries to persuade and convince the reader that art history is a separate discipline from history. Her opinions are nuanced throughout the work, saying things like, “...as meaningless as putting art in chronological order.”, “...this does not necessarily impinge on our analysis of them.”, “I find it hard to see him as a traditionalist.” and “...hold some of the finest works of art in the world and are all impressive buildings.” (Arnold) The author makes a statement then contradicts it right after she says it. She seems to focus on women in art and not men, giving the whole book a feminist feel without reason. She has a pejorative outlook on men in art, and essentially, everything else she disagrees with. She has no prowess as an articulated and organized author. She subsumes topics together when they should not be. The author implements run-on sentences as an excuse to use big words. One of the worst things she says is that Super Mario is more recognizable than Mona Lisa. Just by saying that, she has narrowed her audience and refutes her chronological order.
I think the work did not fulfill its purpose because of all the flaws and disregard of information. The author did not succeed in persuading me towards her viewpoint because of how snarky the tone was. I did not enjoy reading the work because of the evidence used to support her baseless arguments and the redundant use or words. I would not recommend this book to anyone. I was highly dissatisfied with the glossary and and way the book was set up historically, and I do not believe at all the the book once discussed art history blatantly. It was a blunt ‘essay’ of opinions on whatever came to the authors mind. This thing was not a beauty to read, and was not a joy forever.
The author approaches and organizes the material by offering a chronological and thematic coverage of a broad range of issues connected to the theme of art history. The authors research appears adequate because she includes a list of illustrations, references, a full glossary of terms, further information which includes a list of website addresses for galleries and museums and an index. She has employed primary resources connected with the subject like actual pictures of the artwork in black and white. However, the artwork would have been easier to read in colour. Though my criticism is harsh, other authors would have included more detail, despite it being a short book. The author even remarks that any omissions or errors are her own. The author does not present footnotes at the bottom of the pages and loosely supports the statements she makes. Her writing uses a first person viewpoint which is annoying and unprofessional for a history book. I feel that this work is of no value to a historian seeking to reconstruct the past because of how little the book is and how much already know information is used. It is absolutely something that an elementary schooler would understand, even they would understand the over-the-top, unnecessary vocabulary.
The author displays prejudices because of the side notes hse makes and off topic commentary. This is one of the first books I have read, never mind a brief history book, where I noticed such subtle bias. Arnold tries to persuade and convince the reader that art history is a separate discipline from history. Her opinions are nuanced throughout the work, saying things like, “...as meaningless as putting art in chronological order.”, “...this does not necessarily impinge on our analysis of them.”, “I find it hard to see him as a traditionalist.” and “...hold some of the finest works of art in the world and are all impressive buildings.” (Arnold) The author makes a statement then contradicts it right after she says it. She seems to focus on women in art and not men, giving the whole book a feminist feel without reason. She has a pejorative outlook on men in art, and essentially, everything else she disagrees with. She has no prowess as an articulated and organized author. She subsumes topics together when they should not be. The author implements run-on sentences as an excuse to use big words. One of the worst things she says is that Super Mario is more recognizable than Mona Lisa. Just by saying that, she has narrowed her audience and refutes her chronological order.
I think the work did not fulfill its purpose because of all the flaws and disregard of information. The author did not succeed in persuading me towards her viewpoint because of how snarky the tone was. I did not enjoy reading the work because of the evidence used to support her baseless arguments and the redundant use or words. I would not recommend this book to anyone. I was highly dissatisfied with the glossary and and way the book was set up historically, and I do not believe at all the the book once discussed art history blatantly. It was a blunt ‘essay’ of opinions on whatever came to the authors mind. This thing was not a beauty to read, and was not a joy forever.
April 2, 2022
Tl;dr Another critical theory jargon book that oversimplifies, craps all over the place and just stinks. It’s also makes a fascinating subject incredibly boring. Avoid at all costs if you are truly interested in art, history or art history.
Specifically, she portrays critical theory as a dumbed down collection of isms (all but feminism created by European white men she constantly reminds us have warped humanity). Aside: Read the VSI on Critical Theory which is excellent if you want a more sophisticated view, although I still remain baffled why so many humanities academics are so enthralled by it.
She then claims this basket of isms, gives us deep and new insights into understanding art history that undermines the ideas of old white men whose paradigms of art fall into one of these baskets:
- classical art as a pinnacle from which everything declined
- history is progress from the primitive to now
- art is a work of genius European white men; women, minorities and non-European can’t create great art
- art isn’t about politics and culture but old white man values like beauty
Besides the terrible over-simplifications, straw man arguments (no straw people here), and misrepresentations of several thinkers ideas, there are also inaccuracies which always drive me nuts (e.g. ancient Babylonians collected artifacts long before the Greeks, iconoclasm only lasted 150 years so of course tons of icons existed 600 years after this controversy was settled). Come on Oxford, why aren’t your editors doing their job and fact checking?
Worst of all, you don’t come away with any coherent view of what art or art history is or should be. Plus it’s all terribly boring to read (yes I know I’ve said that already but…)
Perhaps this book grated on me so much because I recently finished the VSI on architecture, which discusses similar themes and issues in a closely related field. That book was highly interesting, enlightening, well presented, thought provoking and jargon free.
Specifically, she portrays critical theory as a dumbed down collection of isms (all but feminism created by European white men she constantly reminds us have warped humanity). Aside: Read the VSI on Critical Theory which is excellent if you want a more sophisticated view, although I still remain baffled why so many humanities academics are so enthralled by it.
She then claims this basket of isms, gives us deep and new insights into understanding art history that undermines the ideas of old white men whose paradigms of art fall into one of these baskets:
- classical art as a pinnacle from which everything declined
- history is progress from the primitive to now
- art is a work of genius European white men; women, minorities and non-European can’t create great art
- art isn’t about politics and culture but old white man values like beauty
Besides the terrible over-simplifications, straw man arguments (no straw people here), and misrepresentations of several thinkers ideas, there are also inaccuracies which always drive me nuts (e.g. ancient Babylonians collected artifacts long before the Greeks, iconoclasm only lasted 150 years so of course tons of icons existed 600 years after this controversy was settled). Come on Oxford, why aren’t your editors doing their job and fact checking?
Worst of all, you don’t come away with any coherent view of what art or art history is or should be. Plus it’s all terribly boring to read (yes I know I’ve said that already but…)
Perhaps this book grated on me so much because I recently finished the VSI on architecture, which discusses similar themes and issues in a closely related field. That book was highly interesting, enlightening, well presented, thought provoking and jargon free.
July 6, 2024
Nghệ thuật là thứ mà ta không thể dừng lại ở dẫn luận.
March 11, 2020
طراحی نوشتار کتاب خیلی خوب است. یعنی یک پراکنده نویسی خواندنی با تجربهی موزهای در میان کلمات است. از این منظر کتاب برای نویسندگان هنر و تاریخ هنر درسآموز است. از منظر محتوا هم نظرگاه متفاوت و نقادانه نویسنده برای من جالب بود. آخر در داخل کشور خیلی زیاد روی این تاریخ هنر ها حساب بازکردهاند.
اما دست آخر گرایشهای فمينيستي نویسنده را هم نمیتوان نادیده گرفت....
اما دست آخر گرایشهای فمينيستي نویسنده را هم نمیتوان نادیده گرفت....
September 23, 2014
براي من كه اطلاع چنداني از تاريخ هنر ندارم كتاب مفيدي بود اما در مجموع چنگي به دل نميزد خصوصاً در بخش هايي كه ارجاعاتي به متفكريني همچون هگل، كانت، فوكو و دريدا داشت سطحي و حتي پراشتباه بود. در مورد ترجمه ي بسيار بد و پرغلط جناب قاسميان هم زبان قاصر است تا جايي كه نام نويسنده را هم به غلط ترجمه كرده اند.
October 5, 2019
Useful introduction so handy to keep nearby for reference. For amusement and also bafflement, have Kindle's text-to-speech read it; I was wondering who Street Peter was till I glanced at the screen and saw St Peter!
November 14, 2022
It's very disappointing to see Oxford University Press let this introduction to art history be authored by a person who is anti-West and spends a lot of the book pushing critical theories and post-modernism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews