The Shock of the new
A beautifully illustrated hundred-year history of modern art, from cubism to pop and avant-garde. More than 250 color photos.
Stats for nerds
5recommend
10mentions
8people
2008–2026years
70% recommend30% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Also The Shock of the New with Robert Hughes.
- Robert Hughes was a real treasure. His archive is worth exploring if only for his honesty and no bullshit approach. He was incredibly well informed and erudite.
His book “The Shock of the New” is a landmark to this day for anyone interested in getting a perspective on how modern art, culture, and western humanity intersect and wind through history. The BBC made a TV version he narrated in the 1980’s that’s very good too - about 7 hours of content. You can find it on YouTube and you don’t need to be an art enthusiast or even too knowledgeable about the subject to appreciate it.
- You pretty much delineated the “modernism” era and the era we are currently stuck in, “post modernism”. From the construction of the Eiffel Tower to WW2, you get rough markers indicating that era.
A great book regarding art in particular is called “The Shock of the New”. There’s also an 8-part (nearly 8 hours long) TV version of it you can find on YouTube.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFtSvldL7Mh4ismj4BgH33pBR...
Robert Hughes, the art critic who wrote the book agrees with your assessment I believe.
- > It's iconic and arguably the symbol of Paris, but it's not really something you would think of when thinking of architectural or functional beauty.
It's an amazing structure and nothing like that was possible before. Only after the construction of it could people get a view of Paris never before possible.
You should read Robert Hughes' book "The Shock of the New" or watch the series. I think it's online on Youtube. It begins with the Eiffel Tower as the starting point and centerpiece of modernism and works through to the modern day to see how art and architecture have evolved for better and worse.
It may give you a new appreciation for the structure within the context of history.
- Thank you for your response.
Frankly... sorting the wheat from the cruft is a major task as there has been so much written on the subject. I would recommend that art be separately considered with respect to it's history (time/place), aesthetics (it's formal parameters) and process (how it was made).
On the subject of art history, I would recommend any art history book that places art in standard sequential order (i.e. 'canon'). Even a child's primer on the subject would be sufficient. A lot can be learned about art by simply placing it in sequential order. Only then can you see that art grew in response to the time/place of its manufacture. If you need a recommendation, then you could do no worse than 'The Art Book' (Phaidon).
More specifically, art produced pre- and post- 1900 needs different treatment as they are different things.
- For art produced pre 1900, the classic tome is 'The Story of Art' by Ernst Gombrich. He may be a bit sneered at nowadays, but he knew his stuff.
- For art produced post 1900 'The Shock of the New' by Robert Hughes is a great primer. Also 'Ways of Seeing' by John Berger is aimed at students and presents high-brow ideas in a very digestible manner.
On the subject of aesthetics, I would recommend 'Toward a Psychology of Art' by Rudolph Arnheim. He may now be considered rather old fashioned but he is one of the few thinkers on art who effectively addressed its formal attributes. He also drew, which is a plus. In the same vein there is Ruskin (Modern Painters) who really understood how an artist thinks, and was no slouch as an artist (draftsman) himself.
On color in art I would recommend Bruse MacEvoy's Handprint website. On the topic of color, he has forgotten more than most people would ever know. In my opinion, he is superior to Goethe and Johannes Itten (both art school favorites but both highly questionable). He does not always organize his thinking as well as might be hoped, but that is the nature of color: pan-dimensional and perverse. Also 'Color space and its divisions' Kuehni, R. G. (2001).
The making of art is a process, yet we only see the finished thing. This is our loss as there is much to be learned by studying this process. On the creative process much has been much written, some of it very high-brow. However, the book I would most highly recommend is rather coffee table: 'Daily Rituals: How Artists Work' by Currey, M. (2013). Nothing gives deeper insight into the mind of a creator than how they timetable their productive life.
Finally, I would recommend that art be experienced 'in situ', in front of the actual artwork. I was speaking to a student a few days ago who claimed to have seen the work of Rothko. Of course they had not, they had only seen photos of it. Nuf said.
- And if you enjoy Ways of Seeing in all its retro-critical glory and need MOAR, check out Robert Hughes's The Shock of the New: https://youtu.be/J3ne7Udaetg
