What do you think?
Rate this book
The Social History of Art #4
Social History of Art: Naturalism, Impressionism and the Film Age v. 4
First published in 1951, Arnold Hauser's commanding work presents an account of the development and meaning of art, from its origins in the Stone Age through to the "Film Age." This new edition of a classic work explores historical and social movements and the effects
these have had on the production of art--the centrality of class and class struggle, the cultural roles of ideologies and the determining influence of modes of economic development. There are 144 illustrations within the four volumes and each volume has a new general introduction by
Jonathan Harris which traces the history of Hauser's project, discusses the relevance of the work for art history today, provides a synopsis of Hauser's narrative, and offers a critical guide that highlights major themes, trends and arguments.
278 pages, Paperback
First published September 12, 1958
15 people are currently reading
602 people want to read
About the author
Arnold Hauser
148 books71 followersArnold Hauser was born in Temesvar (now Timisoara, Romania), to a family of assimilated Jews. He studied history of art and literature at the universities of Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. In Paris his teacher was Henri Bergson who influenced him deeply. To earn extra income he reported on art, literature and cultural events for the Temesvári Hírlap (Temesvár News). For a period he was a teacher at a Budapest Gymnasium.
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Lukács in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Lukács in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 8, 2015
It was a very comprehensive, if jam-packed and fast-paced, overview of modern art history. It had a distinctively communist/socialist slant to the research and not all findings were without bias. All in all, an interesting read.
September 21, 2019
------Sep. 13th 2019 update-----
No I'm not done with this shit because Hauser could have achieved so much more and better.
I literally can't understand why Hauser abandoned the stunning approach in the first volume and went all the way gradually, till the forth one totally, into this bizarrely shallow artificiality of philistine level social approach, saying, blaming everything on class and money down to a vulgarly crooked Marxism mutation.
First of everything all, what Hauser impressed me most is in his first volume, he illustrated the dynamic of that the naturalistic outlook of art in a less strata established society verses a geometrical aestheticism of abstract and simplifying, frontal image of power, under the condition of a stable tradition-ed civilization. The more I re-read that part, and connecting it with the later volumes (especially the forth) the more I got pissed off. He has already pointed out, that, the naturalistic outlook will transformed into the abstract, careless, and simplified strokes and images (which are in fact, mental images), as the focus and condition of social life alters! Dude! Do you even know what you are touching here? Those mental images manifested themselves in abstracted and remote and un-life way along side the strict hold of power and civilization, which in turn served somewhat as the language that defined the shape of power and society. Then those manifested mental images or archetypes, once rigescent into real life as a code, it lost its charm and light, then people turned away from the inner attention to a world outside where now seems to be a brighter and lovelier aspect. Then the lost of charm of its language, signifies the waning of the correlating power (e.g. Gothic art impregnates a naturalism being an unstable equilibrium of world-affirming and world-denying impulses ; and think about German Romanticism, all the pros and cons it gets all along the way, etc. ). The outside world then will be exploited, as this time the social condition alters to a less strict-hold power and society, and the less repressed life experience paralyzing with more individual human activities in life. The more real life they get, the more realness they want; yet the more realness they want, the closer they approached the unreal, the inner, the psyche, the mental images. As within the naturalistic trend of art, to find the bizzare figures and wish fulfillment elements in idyll painting are not uncommon, and some more blatant betrayal of such can be seen in 19'c-20'c naturalist novels that in the end take the turn towards psychology. Now here we go, those inner mental images rise, pave the way to a new strict-hold of power (we all know what happened to German Romanticism), ect., things like that.
This so-called magnum opus could have been a decent magnum opus if Hauser sticks to what he has started! It's so promising and could have been a legendary Jungian enantiodromia live action masterpiece in real intelligent history study! Geez, Arnold, what have you missed out when denying blindly l'art pour l'art!! In first volume, when he still have such notion in him functioning somewhere in his mind, he is Hauser, then later, finally in the last volume, he is no one but putting together materiel for some big purpose like he's a screw on machine!
This is probably the most dislikable proposition of most Marxism critics: railing and hurling, they pour their resentment towards that cold mechanical mundane system of money economy and class oppression, then in return, they surrender, if not can't wait to shove, everything they analysis to the feet of this bloody system; They hate the mechanical economy and class system made them slaves and screws while can't wait to coerce everything, with or without their reach fundamentally, to that condition. This is exactly what Hauser is doing in the forth volume.
Analogically, it's like, just imagine if Jung when analyzing archetypes, just encouraged everybody let their lives lived by myth bcs it's how things go. Or, later how precisely Jungian criticism abusing everything by a gaudy mutated version of original archetype approach.
It's gross, and I feel sorry for him.
-------Sep 13, 2019 update finish--------
This is the last three sentences of the whole series, if Hauser meant every word he said, then the whole dynamic of art history he's elaborated for so long is dismantled by himself right here. He countlessly stressed the point that the art resembles a long stream of dynamic forces in historical conditions, and the time, the chronic sequence is not how experiences being weaved into life, right? There's always no guarantee that when understanding of certain part of it deepens, the trend of art is not shifting to another level or new frontier with another triumphant of nostalgia already. Then if cultural monopoly means the unfriendly attitude towards the increased and deepened understanding of broader masses, the "precondition" is to fight to slake it, then what's the point of dynamics of art anyway? It always changes, it itself as a whole never pleases to some understanding of certain place and certain time and certain broader mass. Then if such thing hold as granted without knowing the whole context of ambiguity, then a natural slide to the point of broader mass against the dynamics of art is on the way. Then who's the culture monopoly? Sounds familiar? Hello? How about those narrower masses being pleased by it or whatever masses not touched by it? Hello again?
I have to say the fourth book is torturous to read, every time when Hauser uses the term "nothing but merely" I want to roll my eyes. Art for art's sake is much nobler than art for socialism's sake. He really thinks the wet dream of socialism utopia can sneak through without notice? Honestly, he did a crappy job on such smuggling.
I mean, Arnold, dude, are you even honest to yourself? He's doing a marvelous job when talking about art of more remote times, but as the timeline processes, his contemporary reality kicks more and more in, I dare to say he for real, when writing the whole series of art history, is gradually sinking into the trap of psyche type problems for real - those who live, think, behave below their standard, likely live, think, behave, inside out - Why Hauser shunned away from the logic that if Romanticism or other intellectualism is, as he stated, an escape from the banal and crude reality, then the naturalism or realism or socialism whatever, also can also be regarded as an attempt of turning away from the gripping gaze of abyss? From the tormenting, inescapable insight of mental world? From the knowledge that too painful and compelling and burning to ignore? It's a likely explanation of his intelligence avalanche in the forth book, he was not so sure about/comfortable with what he preached (read: propagated) as he thought he was, but he wanted to believe it, so he shunned away from vital points while hiding fuse that threatens to dismantle his whole effort, without too much consciousness.
How about we start at being honest to yourself then hate Germans second, Arnold? But it's hard, I know (sigh
No I'm not done with this shit because Hauser could have achieved so much more and better.
I literally can't understand why Hauser abandoned the stunning approach in the first volume and went all the way gradually, till the forth one totally, into this bizarrely shallow artificiality of philistine level social approach, saying, blaming everything on class and money down to a vulgarly crooked Marxism mutation.
First of everything all, what Hauser impressed me most is in his first volume, he illustrated the dynamic of that the naturalistic outlook of art in a less strata established society verses a geometrical aestheticism of abstract and simplifying, frontal image of power, under the condition of a stable tradition-ed civilization. The more I re-read that part, and connecting it with the later volumes (especially the forth) the more I got pissed off. He has already pointed out, that, the naturalistic outlook will transformed into the abstract, careless, and simplified strokes and images (which are in fact, mental images), as the focus and condition of social life alters! Dude! Do you even know what you are touching here? Those mental images manifested themselves in abstracted and remote and un-life way along side the strict hold of power and civilization, which in turn served somewhat as the language that defined the shape of power and society. Then those manifested mental images or archetypes, once rigescent into real life as a code, it lost its charm and light, then people turned away from the inner attention to a world outside where now seems to be a brighter and lovelier aspect. Then the lost of charm of its language, signifies the waning of the correlating power (e.g. Gothic art impregnates a naturalism being an unstable equilibrium of world-affirming and world-denying impulses ; and think about German Romanticism, all the pros and cons it gets all along the way, etc. ). The outside world then will be exploited, as this time the social condition alters to a less strict-hold power and society, and the less repressed life experience paralyzing with more individual human activities in life. The more real life they get, the more realness they want; yet the more realness they want, the closer they approached the unreal, the inner, the psyche, the mental images. As within the naturalistic trend of art, to find the bizzare figures and wish fulfillment elements in idyll painting are not uncommon, and some more blatant betrayal of such can be seen in 19'c-20'c naturalist novels that in the end take the turn towards psychology. Now here we go, those inner mental images rise, pave the way to a new strict-hold of power (we all know what happened to German Romanticism), ect., things like that.
This so-called magnum opus could have been a decent magnum opus if Hauser sticks to what he has started! It's so promising and could have been a legendary Jungian enantiodromia live action masterpiece in real intelligent history study! Geez, Arnold, what have you missed out when denying blindly l'art pour l'art!! In first volume, when he still have such notion in him functioning somewhere in his mind, he is Hauser, then later, finally in the last volume, he is no one but putting together materiel for some big purpose like he's a screw on machine!
This is probably the most dislikable proposition of most Marxism critics: railing and hurling, they pour their resentment towards that cold mechanical mundane system of money economy and class oppression, then in return, they surrender, if not can't wait to shove, everything they analysis to the feet of this bloody system; They hate the mechanical economy and class system made them slaves and screws while can't wait to coerce everything, with or without their reach fundamentally, to that condition. This is exactly what Hauser is doing in the forth volume.
It's gross, and I feel sorry for him.
-------Sep 13, 2019 update finish--------
"It will never be possible for everyone to enjoy and appreciate it in equal measure, but the share of the broader masses in it can be increased and deepened. The preconditions of a slackening of the cultural monopoly are above all economic and social. We can do no other than fight for the creation of these preconditions."
This is the last three sentences of the whole series, if Hauser meant every word he said, then the whole dynamic of art history he's elaborated for so long is dismantled by himself right here. He countlessly stressed the point that the art resembles a long stream of dynamic forces in historical conditions, and the time, the chronic sequence is not how experiences being weaved into life, right? There's always no guarantee that when understanding of certain part of it deepens, the trend of art is not shifting to another level or new frontier with another triumphant of nostalgia already. Then if cultural monopoly means the unfriendly attitude towards the increased and deepened understanding of broader masses, the "precondition" is to fight to slake it, then what's the point of dynamics of art anyway? It always changes, it itself as a whole never pleases to some understanding of certain place and certain time and certain broader mass. Then if such thing hold as granted without knowing the whole context of ambiguity, then a natural slide to the point of broader mass against the dynamics of art is on the way. Then who's the culture monopoly? Sounds familiar? Hello? How about those narrower masses being pleased by it or whatever masses not touched by it? Hello again?
I have to say the fourth book is torturous to read, every time when Hauser uses the term "nothing but merely" I want to roll my eyes. Art for art's sake is much nobler than art for socialism's sake. He really thinks the wet dream of socialism utopia can sneak through without notice? Honestly, he did a crappy job on such smuggling.
I mean, Arnold, dude, are you even honest to yourself? He's doing a marvelous job when talking about art of more remote times, but as the timeline processes, his contemporary reality kicks more and more in, I dare to say he for real, when writing the whole series of art history, is gradually sinking into the trap of psyche type problems for real - those who live, think, behave below their standard, likely live, think, behave, inside out - Why Hauser shunned away from the logic that if Romanticism or other intellectualism is, as he stated, an escape from the banal and crude reality, then the naturalism or realism or socialism whatever, also can also be regarded as an attempt of turning away from the gripping gaze of abyss? From the tormenting, inescapable insight of mental world? From the knowledge that too painful and compelling and burning to ignore? It's a likely explanation of his intelligence avalanche in the forth book, he was not so sure about/comfortable with what he preached (read: propagated) as he thought he was, but he wanted to believe it, so he shunned away from vital points while hiding fuse that threatens to dismantle his whole effort, without too much consciousness.
December 16, 2015
These Hauser books are remarkably well written and highly recommended by me (esp. for anyone studying older literature.) He sets class into motion in an analysis of art that peruses the French novelists with a certain casual rigor, and how the novelists fit in the art movements of naturalism, impressionism, realism, modernism as well as in class struggle. It's excellent for a glancing study. He seems to do novelists mostly and has less to say about painters. Most impressive and not often seen in academic works is the inclusion of the readership of these books-- why did people find Balzac so compelling and what does this say about relations of those readers to the aristocratic class?
August 25, 2021
Γενικότερα έχω διαβάσει μια σειρά βιβλίων του Hauser.. Μιλάει για θέματα όπως ο νατουραλισμός, την γενιά του 1830, τον ιμπρεσιονισμό κλπ.. αν έχεις διαβάσει και τα προηγούμενα τότε καταλαβαίνεις την γραφή και τον τρόπο του συγγραφέα
December 16, 2007
جلد اول به هنر دوران های ماقبل تاریخ تا قرون وسطی و اوایل دوره ی رنسانس می پردازد (بخش اول به ادبیات مصر و آشور و بابل، ادبیات چین و هند، بخش دوم شامل ادبیات یونان باستان، بخش سوم به رم باستان، بخش چهارم به ادبیات شرق در سده های میانه، به ویژه چین و در بخش آخر به ادبیات سده های میانه در آلمان، بریتانیا، فرانسه، اسپانیا و ایتالیا)، همراه با تصاویری از هنر دوران غارنشینی انسان.
جلد دوم به ادبیات ایتالیا و آلمان در دوره ی رنسانس، و سپس از هفده تا اوایل قرن بیستم می پردازد (ایتالیا، سر دمدار ادبیات پیشرو در رنسانس، فرانسه تا سده های هفده و هژده و عصر رمانتیک، و سده ی نوزده و بیست، مکاتب واقع گرایی و نمادگرایی و... بخش سوم شامل ادبیات اسپانیاست که از "دوران طلایی" (عصر دن کیخوته) آغاز می شود و تا پایان قرن نوزدهم ادامه داده)، بخش بعدی در مورد ادبیات روسیه از عصر طلایی، ابتدای قرن نوزده تا اوایل قرن بیستم است.
و جلد سوم به هنر "روکوکو"، "کلاسی سیسم" و "رمانتی سیسم" اختصاص دارد، حاوی تصاویری از هر سه مکتب دوره ی رنسانس است. (ادبیات آمریکا از دوران مهاجرنشینی و سپس انقلاب و دوران پس از پیروزی تا جنگ اول جهانی، بخش دوم شامل ادبیات انگلیس از سده های میانه، هفدهم تا سده ی بیستم).
جلد چهارم به ناتورالیسم، امپرسیونیسم و عمدتن مکاتب هنری تا ابتدای قرن بیستم می پردازد، و حتی در یک فصل، به "عصر فیلم" نیز اشاره هایی دارد. برخلاف سه جلد اول، جلد چهارم در فارسی، دارای فهرست مطالب است و در انتها بخشی هم به "اضافات" از جمله برندگان نوبل می پردازد. اهمیت پژوهش عظیم آرنولد هاوزر در مجلدات سوم و چهارم بیشتر مشهود است. آرنولد هاوزر (1978-1892)، متخصص تاریخ هنر، رمانیایی ساکن مجارستان، بر مینای تاثیرات اجتماعی بر هنر انسان در طول تاریخ، و برعکس، نوشته شده. تاریخ اجتماعی هنر برای بسیاری از پژوهشگران جامعه شناختی، منبع بسیار با ارزشی ست. همت ترجمه و انتشار چنین اثری در زبان فارسی به راستی ستودنی ست. کتاب را امین موید به فارسی برگردانده و چاپ دوم آن در1361 توسط چاپخش منتشر شده است.
When the work appeared in English in the 1950s, it stirred up great controversy because of its ideological orientation. Postmodernist art historians have rarely made references to Hauser's fundamental study. Arnold Hauser was born in Temesvar, Hungarian. In Paris his teacher was Henri Bergson who influenced him deeply. In Budapest Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and
جلد دوم به ادبیات ایتالیا و آلمان در دوره ی رنسانس، و سپس از هفده تا اوایل قرن بیستم می پردازد (ایتالیا، سر دمدار ادبیات پیشرو در رنسانس، فرانسه تا سده های هفده و هژده و عصر رمانتیک، و سده ی نوزده و بیست، مکاتب واقع گرایی و نمادگرایی و... بخش سوم شامل ادبیات اسپانیاست که از "دوران طلایی" (عصر دن کیخوته) آغاز می شود و تا پایان قرن نوزدهم ادامه داده)، بخش بعدی در مورد ادبیات روسیه از عصر طلایی، ابتدای قرن نوزده تا اوایل قرن بیستم است.
و جلد سوم به هنر "روکوکو"، "کلاسی سیسم" و "رمانتی سیسم" اختصاص دارد، حاوی تصاویری از هر سه مکتب دوره ی رنسانس است. (ادبیات آمریکا از دوران مهاجرنشینی و سپس انقلاب و دوران پس از پیروزی تا جنگ اول جهانی، بخش دوم شامل ادبیات انگلیس از سده های میانه، هفدهم تا سده ی بیستم).
جلد چهارم به ناتورالیسم، امپرسیونیسم و عمدتن مکاتب هنری تا ابتدای قرن بیستم می پردازد، و حتی در یک فصل، به "عصر فیلم" نیز اشاره هایی دارد. برخلاف سه جلد اول، جلد چهارم در فارسی، دارای فهرست مطالب است و در انتها بخشی هم به "اضافات" از جمله برندگان نوبل می پردازد. اهمیت پژوهش عظیم آرنولد هاوزر در مجلدات سوم و چهارم بیشتر مشهود است. آرنولد هاوزر (1978-1892)، متخصص تاریخ هنر، رمانیایی ساکن مجارستان، بر مینای تاثیرات اجتماعی بر هنر انسان در طول تاریخ، و برعکس، نوشته شده. تاریخ اجتماعی هنر برای بسیاری از پژوهشگران جامعه شناختی، منبع بسیار با ارزشی ست. همت ترجمه و انتشار چنین اثری در زبان فارسی به راستی ستودنی ست. کتاب را امین موید به فارسی برگردانده و چاپ دوم آن در1361 توسط چاپخش منتشر شده است.
When the work appeared in English in the 1950s, it stirred up great controversy because of its ideological orientation. Postmodernist art historians have rarely made references to Hauser's fundamental study. Arnold Hauser was born in Temesvar, Hungarian. In Paris his teacher was Henri Bergson who influenced him deeply. In Budapest Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and
January 19, 2011
This is, in my opinion, the weakest of Hauser's quartet of Social Histories. Shame really.... the others are so strong.
April 6, 2016
There are many insightful comments about how the different social classes influence the art that is produced.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews