What do you think?
Rate this book
World of Art
Art Since 1960
Art today may seem perplexing at first with its divergent styles, forms, practices, media, and agendas. Michael Archer's intelligently argued survey is unique in revealing and making coherent sense of art practice from the past forty years―Pop, Minimal, Conceptual, Land, Performance, Body, and Installation―and myriad developments in the work of Warhol, Beuys, Bourgeois, and the many other artists whose works are discussed and illustrated here. The underlying themes that run through contemporary art, irrespective of styles and techniques, reveal the complex relationship between art and everyday life worldwide. This revised and expanded edition is brought up to date with discussions on the more comprehensive globalization of art since the mid-1990s, which can be seen in the growth of the exhibition calendar and the number of new contemporary art museums opening around the world. With over thirty additional illustrations and an updated timeline and bibliography, this book will prove indispensable to anyone interested in the evolution of modern art. 225 (97 in color)
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
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 2, 2022
تویسنده یک سری اسامی هنرمندان را قطار کرده بدون توضیح کافی درباره‌ی فلسفه‌ی تغییر رویکردها. تصاویر کم و با کیفیت پایین هستند. مترجم به خود زحمت نداده اسامی انگلیسی هنرمدان را ذکر کند در نتیجه پیدا کردن اسم هنرمندان تلاش مذبوحانه ی در اغلب موارد بی سر انجامی است.
خدایا خدایا ما را از شر چنین کتاب‌هایی حفظ کن.
خدایا خدایا ما را از شر چنین کتاب‌هایی حفظ کن.
Read
February 3, 2009i've been reading this since 1960, which means it sits on my bookshelf and my cat flips through it while i'm at work.
it's a useful overview, though.
it's a useful overview, though.
November 13, 2023
esse é o pior livro de história da arte que eu já “li” na minha vida. um americano burro que só sabe endeusar a arte dos estados unidos (que é uma bosta, diga se de passagem) e não consegue construir 01 linha de raciocínio, se quer. joga as informações do artistas e das obras sem contexto algum, não se dá o trabalho nem de seguir uma ordem cronológica, deixando a leitura completamente confusa com uma narrativa superficial. ignora a importância das vanguardas europeias e ainda chama os situacionistas de “situacionismo”. enfim, foi uma tortura ler isso e não acrescentou em nada na minha vida.
August 4, 2009
At first this book was really hard and I didn't want to read it but once I got to the 1980s it became really easy. I think because subconsciously I already knew all this stuff. Finishing the book was an accomplishment to me and now I feel on top of everything.
Currently reading
July 24, 2014ترجمه اش خیلی بده :(
February 28, 2021
Quite readable overview of post-WWII art. Hardly any depth on individual artists, but that's the flip side to the book's strength of guiding readers through such a breadth of art-world figures.
Typical paragraphs start with about 5 names & dates of artists. Then the paragraph gives a few sentences to each name, specifying individual works and their significance. Next paragraph repeats that formula with new names... again and again.
At times, it felt too fast: when that individual artwork wasn't printed in the book, how much can 2 sentences express about it? Yet Archer writes precisely so, more often, I got a clear sense of or at least an intriguing evocation about the work. And with 200+ illustrations (many in color) in my 2002 new/2nd edition, there often is an accompanying visual.
I don't recall any thesis given in a chapter or the book as a whole. That too is a strength & weakness. As a philosophy professor, I want a theory, a claim, a 'truth' about some set of particulars (crazy of me, I know!). But artists, art historians, and critics like Archer are much more focused on particular artists, works. They 'show' some discrete thing and leave generalities to readers who are so inclined. That is, they know what philosophers often forget: that the particular has reality and value even when not yoked to some world-historical theory about "Sensation," "Representation," "History," "The West," etc.
And yet! No sense that chapters or the whole book had much of a point or organizing idea other than "artists in this approximate timeframe." Again, giving something other than generalities about 'The Artwork' (generalities which others can form if they care to do so based on Archer's supplied particulars) is valuable, and is a skill (a duty, even?) of the critic.
Yet a mass of details held to gather by little more than "here are this decade's trends, which sort of differ and sort of resemble some prior trends' feels unrewarding, unfinished.
The upshot: a crisp read covering a wide variety of artists. Read it once through and then retain it as a list of artists, some of whom you will look into in greater depth, going beyond what this book could or attempted to give you.
Typical paragraphs start with about 5 names & dates of artists. Then the paragraph gives a few sentences to each name, specifying individual works and their significance. Next paragraph repeats that formula with new names... again and again.
At times, it felt too fast: when that individual artwork wasn't printed in the book, how much can 2 sentences express about it? Yet Archer writes precisely so, more often, I got a clear sense of or at least an intriguing evocation about the work. And with 200+ illustrations (many in color) in my 2002 new/2nd edition, there often is an accompanying visual.
I don't recall any thesis given in a chapter or the book as a whole. That too is a strength & weakness. As a philosophy professor, I want a theory, a claim, a 'truth' about some set of particulars (crazy of me, I know!). But artists, art historians, and critics like Archer are much more focused on particular artists, works. They 'show' some discrete thing and leave generalities to readers who are so inclined. That is, they know what philosophers often forget: that the particular has reality and value even when not yoked to some world-historical theory about "Sensation," "Representation," "History," "The West," etc.
And yet! No sense that chapters or the whole book had much of a point or organizing idea other than "artists in this approximate timeframe." Again, giving something other than generalities about 'The Artwork' (generalities which others can form if they care to do so based on Archer's supplied particulars) is valuable, and is a skill (a duty, even?) of the critic.
Yet a mass of details held to gather by little more than "here are this decade's trends, which sort of differ and sort of resemble some prior trends' feels unrewarding, unfinished.
The upshot: a crisp read covering a wide variety of artists. Read it once through and then retain it as a list of artists, some of whom you will look into in greater depth, going beyond what this book could or attempted to give you.
January 28, 2023
This is my 2nd attempt trying to read this poor excuse of a book and I don’t even know where to begin with. You would this book would make for a great introduction but instead the writer is all over the place and apparently has never heard of subsections. Honestly my biggest gripe is how the writer just quickly skims through information from one topic to another without warning making it nearly impossible to grasp any information as you simultaneously are trying to figure out how the works mentioned look since in typical part art book fashion not all of them are included.
January 22, 2020
I LOVE THIS BOOK.
April 19, 2018
The headings of these six chapters are probably the only binding bundle to hold all these diverse artists(and their artwork) together. Mr Archer, apparently assuming a very solid foundation knowledge from the reader, is not deterred to present more than six artists, stylistically varied and unrelated at first glance, in a single paragraph anytime when he sees fits to fill in the pages with more unfamiliar names. Virtually every paragraph is a closed unit and more than one chapter is concluded abruptly to summon the main theme of that particular chapter(as the art world is seemingly a labyrinth to our writer whose compass fails to function).
Why this book is a recommended reading in certain prestigious college is a mystery...
Why this book is a recommended reading in certain prestigious college is a mystery...
December 17, 2016
Less thematic than I would have liked; often reads as if he has simply ripped off about 40-50 catalogue commentaries on individual artworks in lieu of making any kind of wider argument about general trends or developments. There are perhaps 10 or so such paragraphs spread over 300+ pages - it's an "overview", alright, but hardly a "critical" one - don't trust the blurb. 4 stars anyway because it at least covered a lot of material in a readable style.
December 31, 2007
from my favorite art history class at oberlin
Read
February 19, 2013What to do about art after the War? Writing about--and studying--the fragmentation and/or proliferation of -isms is a daunting task.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews