The Story of Art

..by E.H. Gombrich.

I've finished reading it - all 490 pages!

It's a good read (good being a relative term - it still took me several weeks to grind my way through it).

It's written in plain English and it sticks to identifying masterpieces and analysing the motivations behind their creation.  No philosophical "blather" (as Saatchi would call it).

At the end I began to wonder whether it was such a great idea to buy a second-hand version for 1 pence (plus postage).

 The first version was published in 1950.  My version, the 13th edition second impression, was published in 1979 and quite a lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge in the art world since then (see my update at the end of this post).  

The current version, on sale for £16.72 on Amazon (RRP £24.95) is the 16th edition, revised and updated in 1995.   I guess there won't be further revisions because Ernst Gombrich died in 2001.

The last chapter in my version is quite reassuring because it makes the point that no one really knows what artists will go down in history until long after they're dead.

It points out that an art critic in 1890 almost certainly wouldn't have even been aware of Van Gogh, Cezanne or Gaugin - three artists from that era that had a huge impact on the evolution of art.

It then goes on to list nine factors that are changing the position of art and artists in society, some of which I rather like:

1) The fact that critics failed to recognise new movements, such as impressionism, in the past now means that critics "have lost the courage to criticise" any new development and the public no longer reject or deride anything posing as art.  It's all treated with reverence in case it turns out to be the next big thing.

Right on, Ernst!

2) Artists and critics try and mimic the way scientists tackle bafflingly complex issues with experiments and reasoning.  The experiments are healthy but analysing art from a theoretical viewpoint isn't.

I agree.  See my post on theorists.

3) Artists have also gone the other way in reacting to the advance of technology - shunning rationality.  "The artist can withdraw into his private world and concern himself with the mysteries of his craft and with the dreams of his childhood."

This brings to mind  Grayson Perry and his teddy bear.  But he doesn't just concern himself with the mysteries of his craft - I appreciate his skill at sharing observations about all sorts of social issues connected to art.

A better fit might be Martin Creed.  He's definitely "quirky" as Gombrich puts it.

4) An interest in psychology in general and Freud in particular have encouraged artists to "explore regions of the human mind which were formerly considered repellent or taboo."

I suppose Michael Petry's talk at Plymouth College of Art is an example of that - showing art based on photos of arse-holes and the distance people could ejaculate.  I was shocked (and tried to hide it).

5) Painters don't need an "intermediary" to create their art unlike, for example, writers that need a book publisher.  As a result they are "the most responsive to radical innovations".

This might be true for painters but (a) I don't think this is a trend and (b)  I'd say the trend was in the opposite direction for sculptors (outdated word?): artists like Petry and Anish Kapoor come up with ideas and possibly get involved in the design but get others to implement them.

6)  Encouragement of self expression among children and adult amateurs (as a result of art education).

7)  Photography as a rival to painting.  Gombrich acknowledges that this is a huge influence and would have come higher on his list if it wasn't for the fact that it applies to painting specifically rather than art in general.

Of course, it's become a much bigger issue since Gombrich wrote his book with the advent of digital photography and cameras in phones.

In his book, Gombrich points out that for long time artists made no attempt to make paintings life-like.  It only really caught on when art stopped being only "religious" and it's probably no coincidence that moves towards capturing more than just "what it looks like" coincided with the arrival of photography.

8) Attitudes to art differ around the world.   Gombrich cites Russia which at the time he wrote his book viewed experimental art as a symptom of decay of capitalist society.

9) The opposite holds true:  Art experimentation has encouraged everybody to take a greater interest in the design of their own possessions and surroundings, to think outside the box and to revel in their freedom and the quirkiness of others.

Gombrich concludes:

"The history of Art only begins to make sense when we see...why painters and sculptors responded to different situations, institutions and beliefs in different ways."

UPDATE:  I've now ordered "150 Years of Modern Art" by Will Gompertz, partly so I can fill in on the 35 years since my version of "The Story of Art" was published.