What do you think?
Rate this book
What Makes A Masterpiece? Art Treasures Of The World, How To Appreciate Art
Format Hardcover Subject Literary Collections
22 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 30, 2014
This is a very subjective topic but the author makes a bold attempt at explaining what he feels is a masterpiece - and who is to say that he is wrong?
Written in 1957, the text is obviously geared to the feelings of the day and there has definitely been a change of perception of art since then, For instance he states categorically, 'As very few persons have the courage and the honesty to say out loud that a famous masterpiece bores them, the reputation of the great public masterpieces is maintained not by their actual qualities or by the knowledge and sensitive reactions of the people who see them and talk about them, but by a queer combination of public ignorance and fear.' I do not think that view would prevail in these enlightened days.
For a non-artist like myself (although I have illustrated [badly*] one volume of my 'Cheltenham Spectator and Festival News') most works of art could be classed as masterpieces for I admire anyone who can put a picture down on canvas, paper or whatever. But, of course, I do completely understand that some works or art are better than others.
The author points out how some once little-regarded works of art are now classed as masterpieces. One example he gives is of 'The Harvesters' by Pieter Bruegel the Elder of which he states that while it represented the taste of the times, it was hardly deemed a masterpiece and this view lasted into the 20th century. To prove his latter point he cites the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica which stated Bruegel's pictures 'are chiefly humorous figures' and then dismissed the artist in 11 lines of text!
He also points out that the perception of artists such as Goya, whose prints could be bought for a few pence at one time, Daumier, taken seriously only by a few artistic friends in his lifetime, El Greco, who those who 'knew about art' thought that money paid for his works had been thrown away, and others have changed over the years. He ends with a Matisse ink drawing of 'Still Life' and offers it for comparison with those of artists whose work features on earlier pages of his book. All masterpieces? I think so.
It is a good, enjoyable read and very thought-provoking in its theme.
* If anyone did consider that I had any artistic style whatsoever, I feel sure they would place me in the naïve school of art! Incidentally I was only obliged to illustrate the volume myself because my 'staff' artist (daughter Deborah) had decided that she wanted a break from the work!
Written in 1957, the text is obviously geared to the feelings of the day and there has definitely been a change of perception of art since then, For instance he states categorically, 'As very few persons have the courage and the honesty to say out loud that a famous masterpiece bores them, the reputation of the great public masterpieces is maintained not by their actual qualities or by the knowledge and sensitive reactions of the people who see them and talk about them, but by a queer combination of public ignorance and fear.' I do not think that view would prevail in these enlightened days.
For a non-artist like myself (although I have illustrated [badly*] one volume of my 'Cheltenham Spectator and Festival News') most works of art could be classed as masterpieces for I admire anyone who can put a picture down on canvas, paper or whatever. But, of course, I do completely understand that some works or art are better than others.
The author points out how some once little-regarded works of art are now classed as masterpieces. One example he gives is of 'The Harvesters' by Pieter Bruegel the Elder of which he states that while it represented the taste of the times, it was hardly deemed a masterpiece and this view lasted into the 20th century. To prove his latter point he cites the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica which stated Bruegel's pictures 'are chiefly humorous figures' and then dismissed the artist in 11 lines of text!
He also points out that the perception of artists such as Goya, whose prints could be bought for a few pence at one time, Daumier, taken seriously only by a few artistic friends in his lifetime, El Greco, who those who 'knew about art' thought that money paid for his works had been thrown away, and others have changed over the years. He ends with a Matisse ink drawing of 'Still Life' and offers it for comparison with those of artists whose work features on earlier pages of his book. All masterpieces? I think so.
It is a good, enjoyable read and very thought-provoking in its theme.
* If anyone did consider that I had any artistic style whatsoever, I feel sure they would place me in the naïve school of art! Incidentally I was only obliged to illustrate the volume myself because my 'staff' artist (daughter Deborah) had decided that she wanted a break from the work!
Displaying 1 of 1 review