What's the worst AH book you've ever read?

[cokohlik]

What's the worst art history book you've ever read?

I'm reading one right now, a biography of Bernini, and although the research and information presented is commendable, the author keeps going off on tangents and making sweeping baseless comments about other artists without providing evidence (e.g. Bernini's competitor, Artist Y, was totally crazy and unstable). It's frustrating because I really want to like this book and recommend it, but I just can't when the author continually leaves out support for the broad statements he makes. At first I thought, "Oh, he'll support it in a couple pages after this tagent." Nope.

So, anyway, this is one of the worst books I've read because of the organization and lack of support. What are some of yours?

[Hegel's Bagels]

Jardin and Brotton's Global Interests. Its many failings are pretty self-evident and don't require much explaining...mostly issues of sweeping assumptions, very little supporting evidence for many of their claims, and a tendency to essentialize. Also, for a book that is supposedly about cultural exchange, there really wasn't a lot of two-way exchange going on. I found it very Eurocentric.

Edited February 15, 2012 by artofdescribing

[cokohlik]

Jardin and Brotton's Global Interests. Its many failings are pretty self-evident and don't require much explaining...mostly issues of sweeping assumptions, very little supporting evidence for many of their claims, and a tendency to essentialize. Also, for a book that is supposedly about cultural exchange, there really wasn't a lot of two-way exchange going on. I found it very Eurocentric.

That's no good! I haven't heard of it, so I looked it up in Google and it has 3 1/2 stars on GoodReads. I'm disappointed. You'd think that people writing books from "Queen Mary, University of London" would produce something pretty awesome.

Edited February 15, 2012 by cokohlik

[stilnovista]

Cokohlik, out of curiousity, which Bernini biography is it that you're reading? I fear I might know who the author is...

[cokohlik]

Stilnovista - for some reason my browser isn't letting me quote, but anyway, it's "Bernini: His Life and His Rome," by Franco Mormando. I'm really disappointed in this book so far. I expected a lot coming from Mormando since I enjoyed some of his previous work on the Jesuits and on Caravaggio. Have you read it?

Edited February 15, 2012 by cokohlik

[stilnovista]

cokohlik, I was indeed thinking of Mormando. I haven't read the book, but I have a dear friend who is in the graduate program in Italian at BC, and I've heard many stories of him, and, unfortunately, let us say, of his obsession with his scholarly output as opposed to his teaching. I once had an advisor recommend I look at that program because of Mormando's focus on Baroque art and my background in Italian. I'm pretty happy with my decision not to go for it now.

[cokohlik]

cokohlik, I was indeed thinking of Mormando. I haven't read the book, but I have a dear friend who is in the graduate program in Italian at BC, and I've heard many stories of him, and, unfortunately, let us say, of his obsession with his scholarly output as opposed to his teaching. I once had an advisor recommend I look at that program because of Mormando's focus on Baroque art and my background in Italian. I'm pretty happy with my decision not to go for it now.

Ick! If he really is obsessed with his scholarship, he should probably spend more time on his book outlines. (Sorry, had to say it because it's true. )

What is your specialty? Italian Baroque?

[losemygrip]

There are so many good candidates for this title that it's impossible to choose.

I can give you, however, what I think are two wonderful models of scholarship and writing (in VERY different veins): David Bourdon's _Warhol_ and Mary Garrard's Gentilleschi book.

[Hegel's Bagels]

Oh, I thought of another FABULOUSLY awful "art history" book: Kimball's Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art. It's an absolute scream. I have a feeling Kimball was that student in the survey class who kept receiving poor grades for talking about how "pretty" or "ugly" the Venus of Willendorf is. He thinks of art as "a source of aesthetic delectation and spiritual refreshment..." c'mon now, seriously? My advisor was in a footnote of the book, which she found absolutely hysterical and even put it on her facebook page. Oh the joys of reading the products of overly-privileged, bitter white men.

Edited February 16, 2012 by artofdescribing

[cokohlik]

There are so many good candidates for this title that it's impossible to choose.

I can give you, however, what I think are two wonderful models of scholarship and writing (in VERY different veins): David Bourdon's _Warhol_ and Mary Garrard's Gentilleschi book.

I absolutely agree! Both about the good books, and the existence of innumerable bad ones

My site takes its name from Garrard's book! I almost applied to AU so I could work with her.

[cokohlik]

Oh, I thought of another FABULOUSLY awful "art history" book: Kimball's Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art. It's an absolute scream. I have a feeling Kimball was that student in the survey class who kept receiving poor grades for talking about how "pretty" or "ugly" the Venus of Willendorf is. He thinks of art as "a source of aesthetic delectation and spiritual refreshment..." c'mon now, seriously? My advisor was in a footnote of the book, which she found absolutely hysterical and even put it on her facebook page. Oh the joys of reading the products of overly-privileged, bitter white men.

Haha!!! Oh no! I've never heard of it, but it sounds like I'll HAVE to read it now, for the amusement! Heh

[stilnovista]

Ick! If he really is obsessed with his scholarship, he should probably spend more time on his book outlines. (Sorry, had to say it because it's true. ) What is your specialty? Italian Baroque?

Actually, my specialty is Italian Renaissance, but I've been known to dabble. Are you a firm "Caravaggista", or what else have your worked on?

[Hegel's Bagels]

I absolutely agree! Both about the good books, and the existence of innumerable bad ones

My site takes its name from Garrard's book! I almost applied to AU so I could work with her.

She's retired though, isn't she?

[cokohlik]

Actually, my specialty is Italian Renaissance, but I've been known to dabble. Are you a firm "Caravaggista", or what else have your worked on?

Nope! I'm Renaissance through Baroque but I too dabble in Neoclassicism, Romanticism, Impressionism and post-Impressionism... heheh

[cokohlik]

She's retired though, isn't she?

Oh! Yep. I knew there was a reason I didn't apply to AU. Hah. I'm getting forgetful in my "old" age [that's been brought on by waiting *cough*adcoms*cough*].

[once]

Architecture of the Absurd by Silber. I'm not a fan of Gehry/Libebskind/"deconstructivism", but this book was all opinion and no hard, scholarly fact.

Edit- misspelled the author's name, whoops!

Edited February 16, 2012 by once

[complexprocedure]

My vote for worst book is Bram Dijkstra's Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Siecle Culture. I know it sounds full-on fantastic (there WAS a reason why I purchased it, after all), but let's just say that after a certain point, the unsupportable conclusions become not distressing, but downright hilarity-inducing. To author: Yes, absolutely - I can see how a frothy cascade of frolicking cherubs precipitates the Holocaust. EXACTLY.

Whew, boy.

[complexprocedure]

Just remembered two more that deserve special mention; while neither is art history per se, they do deal with the art world in a related manner. The first is Robert Wittman's Priceless: How I Went Undercover to Rescue the World's Stolen Treasures. The author worked in the FBI's art crime division (and, if you believe his tale, single-handedly and under great opposition created such a beast) and while I had high hopes for this one, it was an outright stinker. The book reads as having been written by a fifth-grader, which I could forgive if Wittman hadn't the luxury of a co-writer to mitigate his authorial weaknesses. Wittman also believes that his education at the Barnes made him superior to an uncountable host of experts who have dedicated their lives to art historical scholarship, yet his writings on art objects are as basic as to be laughable. Most irritating, however, is that the work becomes a tome about the ax that Wittman must urgently grind with the FBI. The tone of his writing, however, is so ego-soaked - a trait, incidentally, that is not likely to win you much favor in the thankless world of the FBI - that when the author clashes with his chief officer and others, I wasn't a bit surprised. Over the course of reading this book, the problem wasn't that I found the material uninteresting; it was, instead, that I did not like Wittman as a person. He seemed too self-absorbed and convinced of his own superior knowledge (and bitterly annoyed that others failed to recognize his greatness) that I had a hard time getting past that.

The second godawful (fiction!) book is one which I am forced to admit I did not finish, although heaven knows I tried: Noah Charney's The Art Thief : A Novel. It features a Caravaggio theft; what could possibly go wrong? I couldn't tell you, as I found it downright unreadable. I actually had to go back to Amazon, since it's been so long out of my library (to the donation pile), I was incapable of even remembering the name! Lo and behold, 31 one-star reviews out of less than 80 total tells you all you need to know.