Icons of Art: The 20th Century

by Jürgen Tesch, Eckhard Hollmann

A snazzy new 21st century design for a timeless Prestel classic starting with Rodin and ending with Louise Bourgeois, "Icons of Art: The 20th Century" features full-colour reproductions of nearly one hundred important paintings, sculptures, photographs and multi-media projects and accompanied by brief biographies of the artists, informative essays, anecdotal information and comparative illustrations. A magnificent introduction to modern masterpieces, this information-packed volume offers an enlightening chronological perspective on the ever-changing face of art as it highlights the works and figures with whom every art lover should be familiar.

Genres: Art

216 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1997

Reviews

[Silvia Cachia]

It was a good book to get familiar with exactly that, 20th century art. Still it's difficult art. It's less art as a medium to express reality, and more the object of reflection and the aim in itself. I still don't like the fact one needs to know the artist and his purposes to get a better grasp (or a grasp at all) of the art he's trying to make. Ortega y Gasset is right there, art in the 20th century became a bit elitist for one has to be informed. It's not that direct, the senses alone, -without some intellectual insight-, can't process it or simply enjoy it. But not all, some artists and pieces captivate from the get go, others, if one invests a little bit of time or makes a small effort, appear interesting and fully enjoyable.

All this said, yesterday I hang some art in my bedroom wall. I plan to cover it completely in time. For now, it has some relevant to me pictures. One I framed with two pages of this book, (yes, I cut the pages loosing the text behind.) This book had text on the left, one example of art on the right, for all the featured artists. My chosen paintings were "This is not a pipe" by my adored Magritte, and Mystery and Melancholy of a Street by Giorgio de Chirico. I placed them together in the same frame. They look gorgeous.

If one looks at the whole of the 20th century, one may gain a bit more understanding. Artists have been redefining art for quite a while, and their proposals all come to add more explored routes in art as a whole, and contribute another step to its history.

[Curtis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Icons of Art features about 100 artworks by different artists in roughly chronological order. It also includes some late 19th century artists who were to shape the beginning of 20th century art, like Van Gogh and Munch. There’s a lot of variety and many artworks I was unfamiliar with. Reproductions fill full pages and look great.

Each artwork is accompanied with a write-up by a different writer, and as a result, the quality of the writing is really inconsistent. Some contributors offer detailed but easy-to-digest insights on the artwork/artist (such as the pages on Andy Warhol and George Grosz). They're happy to explain complex ideas, explain influences and ideologies or namedrop movements. Unfortunately, other writers refuse to explore the ideological underpinnings of the artists. For example, the page on Piet Mondrian doesn’t mention how he was influenced by the philosophy of Hegel and sought to ‘neutralize’ the hierarchy of painting and reducing it to logical base components. The page on Jackson Pollock doesn’t mention how art critic Clement Greenberg helped him revolutionize painting, or how Pollock’s work went from avant-garde to CIA-funded Cold War propaganda within the span of a few years. None of the pages on surrealists mention Sigmund Freud, without whom surrealism might not exist. Dadaism isn’t discussed anywhere! A few pages are flat-out inaccurate—the page on Robert Rauschenberg features his artwork “Canyon” but the title mistakenly calls it “Bed.” Consequently, the accompanying write-up discusses the wrong artwork! I can’t tell you how much that drives me crazy. Many pieces come across as more vapid than they really are; some write-ups barely do more than describe what the art looks like.

Had there been fewer writers, the book could be coordinated in a way that better contextualized the artworks, and the book could have been a lot better. As it is, Icons of Art: The 20th Century is still decent in showing how the period completely changed what could be considered art, and how many artists were set on disrupting every modicum of tradition and convention that they could think of. Though the writing is hit-and-miss, it’s still a decent introduction and overview of 20th Century Art.

[christinemm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Survey book with summary of big names in art in the 20th century. Nice quality paper, softcover book.