What do you think?
Rate this book
World of Art
A Concise History of Modern Painting
Presents reproductions and text discussing paintings by famous 20th century artists
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1959
43 people are currently reading
617 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Read
410 books94 followersSir Herbert Edward Read, (1893 - 1968) was an English art historian, poet, literary critic and philosopher, best known for numerous books on art, which included influential volumes on the role of art in education. Politically, Read considered himself an anarchist, albeit in the English quietist tradition of Edward Carpenter and William Morris.
Read was co-founder of the Institute of Contemporary Art & the publisher and editor-in-chief of Jung's collected works in English.
On 11 November 1985, Read was among 16 Great War poets commemorated on a slate stone unveiled in Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner.
He was the father of the well-known writer Piers Paul Read, the BBC documentary maker John Read, the BBC producer and executive Tom Read, and the art historian Ben Read.
Read was co-founder of the Institute of Contemporary Art & the publisher and editor-in-chief of Jung's collected works in English.
On 11 November 1985, Read was among 16 Great War poets commemorated on a slate stone unveiled in Westminster Abbey's Poet's Corner.
He was the father of the well-known writer Piers Paul Read, the BBC documentary maker John Read, the BBC producer and executive Tom Read, and the art historian Ben Read.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
October 28, 2021
Χθες το βράδυ με πήρε ο ύπνος ενώ ήμουν στη σελίδα 284, πάνω από ένα πίνακα του Γκόργκι ( του Αρσιλ, όχι του αγαπημένου, επαναστατικού Μάξιμ). Έβλεπα στον ύπνο μου ροζ φιγούρες και ρευστά τοπία, ενώ με μεγάλη έκπληξη διαπίστωσα το πρωί ότι το όνομα του πίνακα που πυροδότησε το υποσυνείδητο μου ήταν «Αγωνία». Πόσο διαφορετικά εκλαμβάνουν οι αισθήσεις μας ένα έργο τέχνης; Αυτό που για τον Γκόργκι ήταν μια αγωνιώδης μάχη με τα πινέλα, ήταν για μένα ένα ζαχαρένιο όνειρο.
Αυτό που αγαπώ στα βιβλία τέχνης είναι ότι, σε αντίθεση με αυτά των θετικών επιστημών, όσο πιο πολλή σκόνη έχουν στις σελίδες τους τόσο πιο χρήσιμα είναι 🥰 Δεν ξέρω αν σας το είπα, αλλά λάτρεψα μία προς μία τις σελίδες του ❤️
Αυτό που αγαπώ στα βιβλία τέχνης είναι ότι, σε αντίθεση με αυτά των θετικών επιστημών, όσο πιο πολλή σκόνη έχουν στις σελίδες τους τόσο πιο χρήσιμα είναι 🥰 Δεν ξέρω αν σας το είπα, αλλά λάτρεψα μία προς μία τις σελίδες του ❤️
June 15, 2017
Η "Ιστορία της Μοντέρνας Ζωγραφικής" του Χ. Ρηντ είναι ένας αναλυτικός οδηγός στον κόσμο της σύγχρονης τέχνης για τους αμύητους και μυημένους. Από τον Σεζάν μέχρι τον αφηρημένο εξπρεσιονισμό είναι η αρχική μορφή του Χ.Ρηντ. Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο δεν κυκλοφορεί πλέον στα ελληνικά αν και εγώ το βρήκα από τις εκδόσεις "Υποδομή"(1978), το οποίο είναι η συμπληρωμένη έκδοση του 1974 με επιπλέον ένα κεφάλαιο που αναφέρεται στην περίοδο από το '60 και μετά. Για τους λάτρεις της τέχνης, απαραίτητο.
May 18, 2020
“A Concise History of Modern Painting (World of Art)” by Herbert Read
A truly remarkable work for those who are already familiar with the main pillars and principles of modern art, and wish to deepen their theoretical understanding.
What makes this book stand out for me is lots of citations from different artists’ books and interviews, explaining their own concepts and ideas.
The narrative is logical and concise (just as the title states), and it covers a huge area of modern art.
A great book for art enthusiasts, and definitely not for those lacking basic knowledge - the sheer amount of names and terminology might be confusing.
A truly remarkable work for those who are already familiar with the main pillars and principles of modern art, and wish to deepen their theoretical understanding.
What makes this book stand out for me is lots of citations from different artists’ books and interviews, explaining their own concepts and ideas.
The narrative is logical and concise (just as the title states), and it covers a huge area of modern art.
A great book for art enthusiasts, and definitely not for those lacking basic knowledge - the sheer amount of names and terminology might be confusing.
January 5, 2020
Читается тяжеловато, процентов 75 из приведенных в книге фамилий для человека не сильно увлеченного живописью совершенно не знакомы. Из того, что отложилось у меня:
1. Кандинский - отец современного искусства, в широком смысле этого слова;
2. Пикассо - его самый яркий представитель;
3. Русское искусство, к сожалению, закончилось на Малевиче и Татлине;
4. Все, что было после Джексона Поллока вызывает вопросы даже у автора книги, т.е. пытаться это понять непосвященному зрителю задача бессмысленная.
Книга написана именно как цепочка событий, фактов и биографий без глубокого анализа собственно живописи. Т.е. после ее прочтения мне так и не стало понятно почему Пикассо и Мондриан - художники хорошие, а Дали и Магритт - не очень.
1. Кандинский - отец современного искусства, в широком смысле этого слова;
2. Пикассо - его самый яркий представитель;
3. Русское искусство, к сожалению, закончилось на Малевиче и Татлине;
4. Все, что было после Джексона Поллока вызывает вопросы даже у автора книги, т.е. пытаться это понять непосвященному зрителю задача бессмысленная.
Книга написана именно как цепочка событий, фактов и биографий без глубокого анализа собственно живописи. Т.е. после ее прочтения мне так и не стало понятно почему Пикассо и Мондриан - художники хорошие, а Дали и Магритт - не очень.
June 12, 2014
I bought this book in Ndola, Zambia, for my very artistic wife who was already familiar with most of the painters that Read describes. As with many gifts, I read the thing mainly for my benefit and profited greatly by it, having been uneducated in the arts up to that time.
December 31, 2018
История действительно краткая, сыплется много имен и запомнить и выделить хоть кого-то нереально. Требуется долгое, вдумчивое чтение. Хорошо как стартовая книга, дальше советую погружаться отдельно в эпохе. Иллюстрации классные.
January 16, 2021
Loved it! It was really a concise history of modern painting (about 20 pages per chapter and there were 8). I would have loved to read more about the late 19th century (Post-Impressionism) and the early decades of the 20th century (Fauvism, Expressionism, Cubism) and less about the artistic developments of the post-war years (Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, etc.) but after reading the book in its entirety, I've come away with a more mature understanding of the latter!
I think what really repels people when they look at a Pollock painting or more contemporary works (e.g. banana on wall) is not the art itself (in fact, the spirit of those artworks is chiefly anti-art) but the fact that anti-artists can still earn so much money for doing things which most people can do (let's not pretend Action Painting requires great skill). It is really unfortunate how as art tried to be more democratic (and less academic) and reactive against the art machine and art market, it has not fully divorced itself from bourgeois institutions like for-profit art galleries and the disgusting art market. How are you going to rebel against the perversion of art by moneyed interests by earning obscene sums of money in the process? With conceptual art, and developments in postmodern art, that is, art that transgressed traditional conventions and forms of art, there could have been a resetting of the place of art in society. It could have "extended the idea of the multiple, cheap way of reproducing art object in editions or ad infinitum, shifting the emphasis from its value as a single unique object to a cheap, reproducible conveyor of an idea"; yet, art is still very much seen as an exquisite form of private property.
Not just that, art has also failed to escape from its status as something exclusively produced by a certain type of people, 'creative elites'.
"Painting has become a highly restricted language and interest, a specialist activity in a society rigidly divided into specialist fields, the result of positivist and materialist thinking. To accept such a division is to support the idea that only certain elect beings are creative."
"The bourgeois order set up by the academy system that was to divorce one field of life from another... science from art. The result is modern man's alienation, his inability to relate spirit and material, or to comprehend the totality of his world. In this divided world, art still stands as an activity without predetermined confines. When this open brief is accepted negatively, it leads to the dead-ends and the triviality that have characterised much of recent art. Taken as a challenge, it could forge a new and expanded concept of art as an interdisciplinary activity, bridging fields of knowledge and linking man's polarities: his intuition and intellect; chaos and order."
The edition I read was printed in 1985. Yet, this analysis still resonates with contemporary society. Art of the galleries seems to be still characterised by 'dead-ends' and 'trivialities' (the recent 'Novel Ways of Being' exhibition in the Singapore National Gallery for instance). Sure, the art presented sought to expand the concept of art as an interdisciplinary activity, with the use of technology, photography, archaeology, etc. but the exhibition overall was incoherent and gimmicky. While I am all for an art of theory, I also believe that great art objects are the ones that are able to establish a place for themselves in society, in human history, and more often than not, those are works of great artistry (in the practical sense). Making art accessible does not mean giving up the quest for perfecting art. The erosion of conventions and formal standards of beauty in art should not mean that artists create works that do not engage the viewer intuitively -- they would be better off writing essays.
Art of the 20th century can be interpreted as a struggle between interpretations of art's role in society -- 1) passive, depicting the world as it is, 2) as strategy (political). While I do not contest the potential of art as a political tool, and the viability of the 'political artist', I still believe that an artist is first and foremost an artist, and should therefore foreground their art before engaging in any activism beyond the world of their ideally self-contained artwork.
Anyways, last point to note: although it was published in America in 1985, there is surprisingly no American bias (lionising of Pollock for example)! Nevertheless, the writing is really stellar -- critical but with a consistent authorial voice.
I think what really repels people when they look at a Pollock painting or more contemporary works (e.g. banana on wall) is not the art itself (in fact, the spirit of those artworks is chiefly anti-art) but the fact that anti-artists can still earn so much money for doing things which most people can do (let's not pretend Action Painting requires great skill). It is really unfortunate how as art tried to be more democratic (and less academic) and reactive against the art machine and art market, it has not fully divorced itself from bourgeois institutions like for-profit art galleries and the disgusting art market. How are you going to rebel against the perversion of art by moneyed interests by earning obscene sums of money in the process? With conceptual art, and developments in postmodern art, that is, art that transgressed traditional conventions and forms of art, there could have been a resetting of the place of art in society. It could have "extended the idea of the multiple, cheap way of reproducing art object in editions or ad infinitum, shifting the emphasis from its value as a single unique object to a cheap, reproducible conveyor of an idea"; yet, art is still very much seen as an exquisite form of private property.
Not just that, art has also failed to escape from its status as something exclusively produced by a certain type of people, 'creative elites'.
"Painting has become a highly restricted language and interest, a specialist activity in a society rigidly divided into specialist fields, the result of positivist and materialist thinking. To accept such a division is to support the idea that only certain elect beings are creative."
"The bourgeois order set up by the academy system that was to divorce one field of life from another... science from art. The result is modern man's alienation, his inability to relate spirit and material, or to comprehend the totality of his world. In this divided world, art still stands as an activity without predetermined confines. When this open brief is accepted negatively, it leads to the dead-ends and the triviality that have characterised much of recent art. Taken as a challenge, it could forge a new and expanded concept of art as an interdisciplinary activity, bridging fields of knowledge and linking man's polarities: his intuition and intellect; chaos and order."
The edition I read was printed in 1985. Yet, this analysis still resonates with contemporary society. Art of the galleries seems to be still characterised by 'dead-ends' and 'trivialities' (the recent 'Novel Ways of Being' exhibition in the Singapore National Gallery for instance). Sure, the art presented sought to expand the concept of art as an interdisciplinary activity, with the use of technology, photography, archaeology, etc. but the exhibition overall was incoherent and gimmicky. While I am all for an art of theory, I also believe that great art objects are the ones that are able to establish a place for themselves in society, in human history, and more often than not, those are works of great artistry (in the practical sense). Making art accessible does not mean giving up the quest for perfecting art. The erosion of conventions and formal standards of beauty in art should not mean that artists create works that do not engage the viewer intuitively -- they would be better off writing essays.
Art of the 20th century can be interpreted as a struggle between interpretations of art's role in society -- 1) passive, depicting the world as it is, 2) as strategy (political). While I do not contest the potential of art as a political tool, and the viability of the 'political artist', I still believe that an artist is first and foremost an artist, and should therefore foreground their art before engaging in any activism beyond the world of their ideally self-contained artwork.
Anyways, last point to note: although it was published in America in 1985, there is surprisingly no American bias (lionising of Pollock for example)! Nevertheless, the writing is really stellar -- critical but with a consistent authorial voice.
August 23, 2022
I would have given this book 3 and a half stars if possible.
Its strengths lie in the number of reproductions included, many of which are in colour as well as the scope of artists covered. There are as many lesser-known and now obscure artists included who were instrumental in the development of painting throughout the first half of the 20th century.
However, a major weakness lies in Herbert Read's style of writing. It is overtly academic: to paraphrase, his style seeks to obscure rather than to illuminate the subject discussed. That is to say, his writing impedes rather than enables clarity and understanding of the subject matter.
(Yes, it really is written like that, and given his name is surname is "Read", it's ironic that he is difficult to read. Pity that his name wasn't "Wright" instead.)
The difficulty of Read's text is also thrown into sharp relief by the concluding chapter provided by Caroline Tisdall and William Feaver. This covers the art movement from the 60s until the 80s which the original text was not able to cover as Herbert Read died in 1968. This chapter flows and is easy to understand without losing academic gravitas. It's a shame that they had not written the rest of the book as well.
Its strengths lie in the number of reproductions included, many of which are in colour as well as the scope of artists covered. There are as many lesser-known and now obscure artists included who were instrumental in the development of painting throughout the first half of the 20th century.
However, a major weakness lies in Herbert Read's style of writing. It is overtly academic: to paraphrase, his style seeks to obscure rather than to illuminate the subject discussed. That is to say, his writing impedes rather than enables clarity and understanding of the subject matter.
(Yes, it really is written like that, and given his name is surname is "Read", it's ironic that he is difficult to read. Pity that his name wasn't "Wright" instead.)
The difficulty of Read's text is also thrown into sharp relief by the concluding chapter provided by Caroline Tisdall and William Feaver. This covers the art movement from the 60s until the 80s which the original text was not able to cover as Herbert Read died in 1968. This chapter flows and is easy to understand without losing academic gravitas. It's a shame that they had not written the rest of the book as well.
August 4, 2022
This book helped me understand how art movements are conditioned by the world they spring from.
It was also interesting to see the evolution of the artist’s wish to transcend the norm, the tradition or the art world, to reinvent the therm of ‘art’.
At times I had to stay with my phone in the other hand and look for the artists named in the pages, their contribution and style, just to understand the description the author gave of their work. I got to discover new styles in this way, and some really good sources of inspiration, but it would help to be aquatinted with the major styles in general. Not a must, just helpful.
I wish this book was written in our time, so all the 20th and early 21st century art could be included in it.
It was also interesting to see the evolution of the artist’s wish to transcend the norm, the tradition or the art world, to reinvent the therm of ‘art’.
At times I had to stay with my phone in the other hand and look for the artists named in the pages, their contribution and style, just to understand the description the author gave of their work. I got to discover new styles in this way, and some really good sources of inspiration, but it would help to be aquatinted with the major styles in general. Not a must, just helpful.
I wish this book was written in our time, so all the 20th and early 21st century art could be included in it.
February 20, 2020
Here is modern painting from its roots in the work of Cezanne, through Cubism, Futurism, Surrealism and Dada in the early decades of the twentieth century and on to Abstract Expressionism in the 1950s.
i wanna read this book .
i wanna read this book .
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 7, 2021
Блестящая книга, которая не просто проводит за руку по всем «Измам» 20 века, но скрупулезно объясняет предпосылки, контекст, влияние одних на других — при этом не перепоручая именами и датами.
Мне кажется, что я даже немножко поумнела, дочитав эту книгу 😂
Мне кажется, что я даже немножко поумнела, дочитав эту книгу 😂
July 14, 2019
Очень хорошая книга - если вы читали 1 или более книг по искусству 20 века, эта будет в самый раз.
П.С. Особенно хорошо рассказали про Сутина и Кондинского - гранд респектунг.
П.С. Особенно хорошо рассказали про Сутина и Кондинского - гранд респектунг.
behind-the-wall
June 29, 2021June 2020: Have had this book since the last century and rarely have read/used it. Just now used as a companion to “The Art of Rivalry” for background on Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Matisse, Picasso, Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud, Manet, Degas, and associates.
Back to behind the wall and reference shelf.
Back to behind the wall and reference shelf.
March 30, 2018
I am somewhat familiar with this subject and I can say that this work gave me more insight into the familiar artists, and listed many other less-familiar artists' names that I might want to look up on Google images.
June 24, 2016
I have an unease relationship with modern paintings. They come in their esoteric, even private language, depicting something entirely obscured from everyday reference. What I am looking at? What am I supposed to think and feel in the presence of this or that painting? and Most importantly, what I am missing by not trying to understand it? Hence the reading of this book which promises to bring philosophic thoughts to the modern paintings.
This book teaches the reader to understanding modern paintings. There are two processes in art: perception and expression. The whole history of art is a history of modes of visual perfection, of various ways in which man has seen the world. When I see the world visually, they are limited to the basic geometric forms and color. Do I notice the placement? juxtaposes of lines and colors? Do they hold any meaning to me?
The banner of Modern Art comes from Matisse “L’exactitude n’est pas la vérité”. Art is a way to conceive the world visually, alternative to other modes such as through symbols ( numerals or letters), or imaginatively through myths. Matisse’s rejection of exactitude is the essential quality of art-making. The artistic truth is a higher integration of visual with psych-emotional. If classic art gives us more clues with visual exactitude, hence the expected response is more uniform, while modern painting forces individual responses through dramatic, varied departure from “exactitude”. However, if such artistic truth leans on subjective-experience, then the original patronage, commercial influence, and chance plays significant roles. I think the only relevant question about art is “what does it mean” instead “is this important”. Thankfully the author has more emphasis on first question.
To start, one must be willing to assume that the perception and expression of visual artists come from a profoundly different viewpoint. A view of modern paintings must be to suspend one own disbelief, and allow the ideas to develop on their own terms.
This book is very well written, should be a reference and a guide.
This book teaches the reader to understanding modern paintings. There are two processes in art: perception and expression. The whole history of art is a history of modes of visual perfection, of various ways in which man has seen the world. When I see the world visually, they are limited to the basic geometric forms and color. Do I notice the placement? juxtaposes of lines and colors? Do they hold any meaning to me?
The banner of Modern Art comes from Matisse “L’exactitude n’est pas la vérité”. Art is a way to conceive the world visually, alternative to other modes such as through symbols ( numerals or letters), or imaginatively through myths. Matisse’s rejection of exactitude is the essential quality of art-making. The artistic truth is a higher integration of visual with psych-emotional. If classic art gives us more clues with visual exactitude, hence the expected response is more uniform, while modern painting forces individual responses through dramatic, varied departure from “exactitude”. However, if such artistic truth leans on subjective-experience, then the original patronage, commercial influence, and chance plays significant roles. I think the only relevant question about art is “what does it mean” instead “is this important”. Thankfully the author has more emphasis on first question.
To start, one must be willing to assume that the perception and expression of visual artists come from a profoundly different viewpoint. A view of modern paintings must be to suspend one own disbelief, and allow the ideas to develop on their own terms.
This book is very well written, should be a reference and a guide.
December 30, 2011
This is a good, small-sized edition that is easy to carry around and read. The binding is tight and the signatures are folded and glued, not sewn. It could easily become dog-eared. My copy has held up well, but I have taken great care not to crack the spine, so I'm not sure how well it would hold up if treated roughly. Don't be put off by the fact of its having a ratio of 118 colored images to 500 total illustrations. The colored plates are overwhelmingly dominant, spread nicely throughout the text, and of good quality; so it's enjoyable to browse as well as to read. Most of the black-and-white illustrations are very small, six or eight to a page in an appendix near the end of the book, and do not distract from the text. The text is clear and concise, fairly easy to read as art books go, and flows easily. It is highly informative. It is not comprehensive, nor is it intended to be, but is a good survey. Possibly, Cubist and similar formal styles are more fully represented than the more passionate, expressionistic styles. A full chapter is devoted to Cubism; Futurism, Dada, and Surrealism are covered in one chapter; and one chapter is given to Picasso, Kandinski, and Klee (combined). Most of the plates are of abstract or non-figurative art. The images lean more toward the painterly and textural than the slick or minimalist styles, which suited me, as a painter. Those interested in photo-realism or hyper-realism, pop-art, and installation art will not find many plates. Quite a few artists are represented.
August 29, 2011
Not bad -- Maybe a high 3 -- I'm not going to finish this, and will mark as 'get-the-picture' (no pun intended)
I was completely wrong about this book - there is a lot of good material in it. I am now in the chapter on Futurism, Dada, and Surrealism, and learning a lot. The book is not well organized - the writer wanders about, and the prints are out of place -- he talks about early Chagall in the section on Dada (Post WWI), and later Chagall in the section on Cubism, and prints the the pictures of Miró and Max Ernst (late 20's) while talking about the late-teens. So one has to work with the author in a very annoying fashion. He also seems to think the Anglo-American culture of 1959 (the year of the first edition) is still essentially futurist -- But that said, the book is well worth some time...
I was completely wrong about this book - there is a lot of good material in it. I am now in the chapter on Futurism, Dada, and Surrealism, and learning a lot. The book is not well organized - the writer wanders about, and the prints are out of place -- he talks about early Chagall in the section on Dada (Post WWI), and later Chagall in the section on Cubism, and prints the the pictures of Miró and Max Ernst (late 20's) while talking about the late-teens. So one has to work with the author in a very annoying fashion. He also seems to think the Anglo-American culture of 1959 (the year of the first edition) is still essentially futurist -- But that said, the book is well worth some time...
October 25, 2018
It's interesting to see how your opinions can change. A few years ago, I read this book as a student and now I'm reading it as a teaching assistant. In these several years since my last reading, I would like to think I have gained knowledge on the subject of this book which enabled me to grasp its full meaning and get the most out of it - and there definitely is a lot to get out of it. I'd recommend this to any student of art or art history or simply anyone interested in modern art. Read summarizes modern art (focusing on painting of course) beginning with its very origins with Cezanne, all the way up to the 70s/80s. He is systematic, well-versed and highly descriptive/illustrative (both literally - using pictures - and metaphorically - through his analyses of the chosen examples).
August 20, 2024
A Concise History of Modern Painting by Herbert Read is a treasure trove of information especially about ideologies and historical cross-connections. At least a German hardback edition of it from 1959 of Droemer-Knaur publishers affords hundreds of sharp and very often colored images, mostly of less known works.
July 10, 2008
intense and thick reading
February 10, 2009
I've got a 1968 edition though, and it has my old school stamp in it - did I nick it?
Want to read
October 25, 2016کتاب به تفصیل و همراه تصاویر نقاشی ها هنرمندان تاثیر گزار و پس از آن سبک های هنری قرن بیستم را شرح میدهد
کیفیت چاپ و تصاویر هم بسیار عالی است
کیفیت چاپ و تصاویر هم بسیار عالی است
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews