<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The best anthology
Review: As an art historian, I have found this to be the best anthology of writing about art history, but it is not a picture book or entry-level history of art. The other reviewers were correct in identifying this book as a specialized volume for academics, not an introduction for the general reader. This is not a drawback unless you expect something else. Professor Preziosi is a leading expert in art history's history and is respected widely for his erudition and comprehensive knowledge of the field. I assign it to my graduate students because the selection of important writings is excellent and Preziosi's introductions are so succinct and precise.
Rating:
Summary: An Intelligent Anthology
Review: I find myself in agreement with Patrick Deegan and the reader from L.A. as to this volume's quality, but less so as to its accessibility. In fact, I believe any intelligent reader should be able to approach this volume and, using Donald Preziosi's succinct commentary as a guide to context, derive valuable knowledge and material for critical thought from it. Readers seeking a simple monolithic approach to the subject of Art History will, needless to say, be disillusioned by the breadth and depth of this volume; readers with an active mind (regardless of whether they describe themselves as academics or not) will be delighted by it. As an example of the careful selection process that has gone into this anthology, I would point out the sequence of texts anthologized in Chapter 8, where the changes over time in critical readings of Heidegger's _The Origin of the Work of Art_ are well reflected in the subsequent essays by Schapiro, Derrida, and Melville. Having any one of these essays present in the volume would be valuable; having the full set allows the reader a far greater degree of insight into the matter of Heidegger's original essay. In short, a book I would strongly recommend to anyone who wants to think independently about art, and not just be told what to think about it.
Rating:
Summary: The best anthology
Review: I was attracted to this nicely packaged book but regret to say that it has some style but no substance. I was hoping to learn more about Art History but instead found that there is no meaningful or comprehensible connection between the text and the portraits. This is really a case where the old adage "don't judge a book by its cover" is true. All I learned was that I would like to buy another book on the topic which will, I hope, be well-written and illuminating.
Rating: 
Summary: a keeper.
Review: In support of the reviewer from L.A., i am in complete accord. This book is an excellent anthology for those interested in a critical examination of Art History's various histories. Usefully sectioned into comparative articles, this book outlines fundamental movements in the discipline's morphology - while acting on a seperate level to detail the current modes of historical apprehension.Some of the articles are more accessible to the novice than others; but overall, no book i know of provides such a comprehensive rendition of the critical historical process while still maintaining the difficult position between providing for a reader's thirst for depth and capability for understanding. Sour reviewers should probably stick to Gardner's _Art Through the Ages_ (a modestly capable book in its own right). Preziosi's book *is* for those who seek to be critical and want to begin to understand the long history of those who have also sought the same self-awareness of the discipline in their own way. One issue to take: some of the translated material does not have as much pedagogical notation as i think could be useful (Hegel's essay in particular) to a neophyte. Five stars is what the book deserves outside of my biased caveat.
Rating: 
Summary: I don't think so...
Review: Other than the pictures I just didn't like this book at all. It is a little to pretentious for me. It makes one wonder about the qualifications of this Preziosi fellow.
Rating:
Summary: a keeper.
Review: Preziosi challenges the prevailing attitude that the study of art historical methodology should be left for graduate/specialized work. Not so - this book opens a space for undergrad inquiry, though it doesn't exactly fill it either. It manages to contextualize themes/concepts (some better than others) into a larger intellectual history, without settling into arid hagiography. But it's more than intellectual history: in its own specific ways, the selections thoughtfully probe the limitations of historiography, and the inherent irony involved in history writing (though the reader is left to make many of these types of conclusions). Preziosi nonetheless provides different levels of accessibility in his introductions, as do the essays themselves, which are pitched at various theoretical levels - some are obviously beyond the undergrad level. The weakest section is that which deals with the Postcolonial: the selected essays, though important, really fail to grasp the complexities of Native North American art and Postcolonial discourse.
Rating:
Summary: OXFORD PRESS LOOSES CREDIBIITY
Review: Unfortunately, allured by the elite publishing house, I purchased this book hoping to find some illumination about Art History. The writing is amateurish and sophomoric. "Professor"? Preziosi seems to be a mildly precocious 8 year old with no formal training. How did he manage to wrangle a contract with Oxford University Press? CAVEAT EMPTOR!
<< 1 >>
| 
