Stories of Art is James Elkins's intimate history of art. Concise and original, this engaging book is an antidote to the behemoth art history textbooks from which we were all taught. As he demonstrates so persuasively, there can never be one story of art. Cultures have their own stories - about themselves, about other cultures - and to hear them all is one way to hear the multiple stories that art tells. But each of us also has our own story of art, a kind of private art history made up of the pieces we have seen, and loved or hated, the effects they had on us, and the connections that might be drawn among them. Elkins opens up the questions that traditional art history usually avoids. What about all the art not produced in Western Europe or in the Europeanized Americas? Is it possible to include Asian art and Indian art in ‘the story?’ What happens when one does? To help us find answers, he uses both Western and non-Western artworks, tables of contents from art histories written in cultures outside the centre of Western European tradition, and strangely wonderful diagrams of how artworks might connect through a single individual. True multiculturalism may be an impossibility, but art lovers can each create a ‘story of art’ that is right for themselves.
James Elkins (1955 – present) is an art historian and art critic. He is E.C. Chadbourne Chair of art history, theory, and criticism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He also coordinates the Stone Summer Theory Institute, a short term school on contemporary art history based at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
'It takes a special reading of a book like Gardner's to find the broken strands of Gombrich's story of realism: you have to read very carefully and often between the lines. But when a writer feels the need to explain simplicity ("...") then something is clearly amiss. Illusionistic works need only to be praised, but abstract and tribal works need to be explained.
2,5 stars As a fresh art student, this was one of the books I had to read for an upcoming exam. The course has the vague title "How the world makes art" - which basically gives lectures the opportunity to speak about whatever they fancy -, aligning perfectly with the vagueness of this book.
Elkins' Stories of Art is divided into five chapters: 1. Intuitive stories, in which Elkins treats some theories and thought experiments on art. He introduces a few mildly interesting concepts, e.a. paradoxical history: the idea that we look at art with our modern eyes, leading to statements like "you can see some Picasso in this Brueghel" (even though Brueghel is 350 years before Picasso). Sadly these topics aren't that elaborated. This would be my favourite part of the book. 2. Old Stories. Mainly an enumeration of old (pre-20th century) art history books, like Vasari's Lives, Bellori and Hegel. This part is somewhat entertaining when Elkins shows how gossipy these early works are. However, this chapter fails to present a real picture of old art history and the problems posed aren't explained. Elkins talks about "the problem Hegel presents for art historians" but it isn't clear what this problem is exactly. Maybe that's me and my inexperience but it bugged me a lot. 3. New Stories: stories of the 20th century, starting with the influential The Story of Art by Gombrich, the inspiration for this book. (Because there's not only THE story.) Again little structure but kind of informative. I found the trends noticed by Elkins particularly striking: how art books get more and more neutral and 'multicultural', trying to erase any bias, while also eliminating any enthusiasm and judgement about art, making the whole discipline a bland mix. 4. The chapter Non-European stories consists of a few examples of art history outside the West. Again mildly engaging. I don't have much to say about this part, but it demonstrates how biased our books really are. 5. Perfect stories. This is the concluding chapter, that should be stimulating and thought-provoking. It is... dull. Elkins accurately presents the main problems with writing about art history and presents a few solutions, but doesn't get into the subject too much. I feel like he left out some examples. The last pages - 'the dark conclusion' - on the other hand, wére refreshing, though the elaboration to me is a bit unreadable.
This book tries to be interesting and different but doesn't get into the topics as much as I wanted to, fading in the background. Maybe that's the goal of this book: there's a whole list of Further Reading suggestions, marking this book as just an orientation thing. But if this is solely for orientation, it could've been sharper and shorter. It seems like the book hasn't really decided what it wants to tell us.
Elkins’ book was used as matrix or base theory to develop theoretical framework for art teaching. The chapter that he resumes all types of art history organization enables to rapidly search for those original theories. It is a helpful guide for framework on art history. Really good !
Ik wist niet dat ik ook over de discipline kunstgeschiedenis ging leren en dat ik dat interessant ging vinden. Maar dit zet je wel echt enorm aan 't denken. Heel interessant kan 't ook aanraden aan mensen die verder geen studie doen in kunstgeschiedenis omdat het gewoon echt een nieuwe blik geeft. En 't las ook best makkelijk dat was chill
A short, accessible work on: -the development of (Western) art history texts from Vasari to Gombrich and beyond -their various ways to incorporate non-Western arts -how non-Western histories differ from the west -what art historians may do to address the challenge of multiculturalism
with sincere and passionate commentary and excerpts from art history textbooks. While the main thesis may slightly feel like it's coming from PoMo 101,it's refreshing to read about the nuance of art (-history) without that anodyne artspeak. I will look into his other works.
It presents interesting ideas but I felt like they went to waste as the author practically redeemed them all to be impossible in the end. What was the point of this book then? It still baffles me.