As far as I'm concerned, this started out much better than it ended. That goes for this book and for art movements of the last 100 years.

I found it interesting his explanation of how Degas differed from the other impressionists. He did not work rapidly, he preferred the studio to plein air, and while the others were focused on ever-changing light, his focus was on the illusion of movement. He also was an outstanding draftsman, which the others were not.

I knew that about this time, art dealers began to become more important making the all-important salon less so for the sale of art works, but Gompertz explains this in more detail. Paul Durand-Ruel was key to the continued work of the impressionists and instrumental to the evolving role of art dealers and galleries. I read a lot about art history and artists, but I've never seen such a short and clear explanation of this change in the business of art.

Gompertz gives a short biography of Vincent van Gogh and then tells about his work. I thought it unfortunate that within that very brief bio, he insisted on the myth that Vincent shot himself when Steven Naifeh and Gregory White's biography of Vincent made a very convincing argument for the fact that he was shot by someone else and that biography was published a year before this book.

A good discussion of Cezanne where he makes clear how important he was and how much other artists valued him.

I was disappointed to see that Gompertz left out Catalan (Spanish) art nouveau. He mentions France (Art Nouveau), Germany (Jugendstil), Austria (Vienna Secessionist). And Spain? Catalonia had an active decorative art movement called Modernism. There were painters, and more famously, there was the architect Antoni Gaudi whose Sagrada Familia and Parc Guell most people have heard of, even if Gompertz hasn't.

I appreciated the observation about Matisse, "...his ability to make a simple mark on canvas that makes an immediate and memorable connection with the viewer elevates him from the good painter to the great artist. The balancing effect of his contrasting shapes, and the coherence of his compositions have been matched by very few artists in the history of painting."

I won’t go into all the contemporary artists (of the last 50 or so years). Just Tracey Emin. Among other of her works, Gompertz talks about My Bed (pg. 382) and describes it as "just that: Tracey Emin's bed, unmade, and dishevelled with stained sheets. It was surrounded on the floor by the detritus of her life: empty bottles of booze, cigarette-ends and dirty underwear."

He goes on to say that "Tracey Emin's unmade bed 'made' her. She became notorious, a love-to-hate character for the media, which she manipulated expertly, becoming very rich and very famous along the way."

Thankfully, I never heard of her until now. On the back cover of my copy it says, in glowing affirmation of this book, that it "explains why Tracey Emin's unmade bed is a work of art, and why yours is not." I beg to differ. Mine is better because (1) I make my bed each morning, and (2) my dirty underwear is hidden away.

In a very poor argument, Gompertz says that "a lot of people knock Tracey Emin, say she is a fraud. History will judge the quality of her art, but she is not a fraud. She has a first class degree from Maidstone College of Art and an MA from the Royal College of Art. Her work can be found in the collections of the world's most illustrious modern art museums (MoMA, Pompidou, Tate); etc.

Well, la dee dah. How sad to resort to making your point by begging the question. The Impressionists had to hold their own exhibition because the establishment didn't like their work. Vincent van Gogh only managed to sell one painting in his lifetime. The art establishment can be wrong either way. The argument for Emin, with her art degrees and acceptance by the Tate doesn't prove a thing. What Gompertz has convinced me of is that art has become a commodity and the art establishment the center of a big business. ( )

Zeer leesbaar boek over de moderne kunst ( )

¿Qué es el arte moderno? ¿Por qué se ama o se odia? ¿Y por qué es siempre tan exageradamente caro?

I picked this book up from the library because I confess that Modern/Contemporary Art tends to leave me cold. I love the Impressionists, but the art movements that came after them often feel inexplicable and opaque to me. I was hoping this book could help me understand and appreciate the art I see in galleries...and to some extent I think it will help do that. Gompertz argues that judging art isn't the point; history will tell us if something was "good." The best way he says to appreciate art is by understanding its place in the history and development of art movements. He's not wrong; I do think I better understand why a Rothko is "art" now than I did before.

But I also think that thesis is my main issue with the book. History can certainly tell us if a work is important and influential. Understanding how a piece was influenced by and influenced other works is interesting on an intellectual level. But art, to me, shouldn't be intellectual and thinky. Great art should make me feel something, even if its just disgust or distaste. And I'm not sure this book got me any closer to being moved by monochrome squares on canvas or sculptures of boxes than I was before I read it. ( )

Divertido e informativo. Will Gompertz conseguiu, através de uma escrita leve, com muitas referências pop e algumas licenças poéticas, contar a história da arte moderna de Delacroix à Banksy. Agora poderei fazer bonito quando vir uma pilha de tijolos no museu!
Recomendo fortemente ler esse livro acompanhado de internet para pesquisar as diversas obras mencionadas. Apesar de 2 encartes coloridos e várias reproduções preto e branco, além das descrições do autor, faz muita diferença olhar para a obra enquanto digere-se o comentário.
( )