I guess, by now, I should have learned my lesson about books that promise to cover whole of art ...or literature...or history in 100 short, snappy, 2 page essays. Just as I sit here, I can see in front of me "1001 ideas that changed the way we think" and "1001 books you must read before you die"...and, over to the left is "The secrets of the universe in 100 symbols". All nice round-ish numbers ....it's nice that knowledge comes so clearly labelled and packaged. Actually, I'm being a bit harsh. This is actually quite a good book and it really does focus on ideas more than tools....though the tools also get caught up in the 100 ideas...eg. Welding and new materials such as plastics. I don't really have too much argument with Michael Bird's selection of the 100 ideas .....although any such selection is going to be highly personalised and somebody else might have emphasised something else. For example: is cooking an art form? what about the "plating" of food that is now so much a competitive activity in reality TV competitions? And I've always kind of wondered about statements such as "It's more an art than a science". I've heard this said about something as scientific as plant breeding where the true artist-plant-breeder makes their selection more on gut instinct than on measured parameters. (Though maybe this is changing as even plant breeding becomes more scientific with gene mapping etc).
I guess, the most frustrating thing I found with this book was the constant referral to examples which are not illustrated. We seem to have about three images per page but the text typically refers to about five other works that are not illustrated. Some of them I knew but many of them were just references for me to look up. (And, of course, I didn't).
I'm not sure that "the densely scrolled, interlocking, vegetal and bodily forms of Aztec relief sculpture echo the hallucinatory visual effects described by users of mescaline" (p181)...as Bird claims or that they are just rather stylised drawings that evolved into those patterns. And a fair proportion of the relief forms is actually hieroglyphic writing and symbols. But that's arguable I guess. Generally, I found his descriptions and deductions authoritative and reasonable. Did it make me think? Maybe a few times as in "Art does not reproduce the visible...rather it makes visible"...Paul Klee 1920. (p 169). Also I hadn't thought about Picasso and Braque's development of collage to incorporate the actual objects. Nor had I thought about the "frame" as a transformative idea ...but I guess it was. So yes. It has made me think.
Overall, quite a nice book despite being straightjacketed into 100 ideas (no more no less) ....and 2 pages each...including illustrations. I give it four stars. ( )