Rating: 
Summary: Refreshing take on Art
Review: First of all, I find that most of the reviews of this book are one star because the readers didnt agree with Staniszewski's ideas, however they ignored how well written this book is. She takes the way we typically view "art" and shows us how fraudulent it is. In doing so she challenges not only are view of art, but also our view of the world around us. Even if you dont like her ideas its no reason not to acknowledge the intelligence with which she has written this book.
Rating:
Summary: Post-modernism finally nakes sense!
Review: From Michelangelo to Madonna, when it comes to making sense of art, Staniszewski explains it all.
Whether you are a student or just someone perplexed by the money, attitudes, or direction that the art world takes, I could not recommend a more readable yet comprehensive beginning.
Over half of the well-designed book is a panorama of cleverly chosen pictures, but the text is a clear and simply put construction of contemporary ideas of art history.
A term that is especially bandied about these days like a crowbar is post-modernism, but without much explanation. After reading this book, I am now a true believer (and hopefully a truer see-er).
It has been hard to keep this book out of the hands of friends. I may have to order a case to give out as gifts!
Rating: 
Summary: Untidy...
Review: I'm reading this book as the class book of the course Art & Culture. There are nice ideas and visions here, but the way they are putted together is very confusing. When she tries to explain what art is, all of a sudden she starts to explain what institutions are. The number of examples is poor. The categorisation of the lecture chapters don't make sense. If you want to read a real good book about this topic, read John Bergen's magnificent "Ways of Seeing". If you already have read that, there is no novelty in this book for you...
Rating:
Summary: Untidy...
Review: I'm reading this book as the class book of the course Art & Culture. There are nice ideas and visions here, but the way they are putted together is very confusing. When she tries to explain what art is, all of a sudden she starts to explain what institutions are. The number of examples is poor. The categorisation of the lecture chapters don't make sense. If you want to read a real good book about this topic, read John Bergen's magnificent "Ways of Seeing". If you already have read that, there is no novelty in this book for you...
Rating:
Summary: This is a great book!
Review: In this book Mary Staniszewski tries a nearly impossible task of defining art. Her twist on the subject is a fresh look at art in the modern movements, but she also splits the art world into two time periods. The early works by those who are termed the old masters (e.g. Michealangelo, DaVinci, Bernini and other pre-1800's artists) do not fit into the definition of modern art that she presents in the book. If she were to have answered the questions in a little more logical fasion I may have been able to follow the first chapter better. But as it stands I don't see how simply useing the date of the modern definition of art can prevent or select an artists work for either being art or not being art. Some other great questions would be: What are Mary Anne Staniszewski's credentials? Has she ever made art herself? Is she an Art Historian? As for the descriptive portion of the book, it is wonderful and well worth reading. I would recommend getting this book just for its documentation of historical events and how they effected modern art movements.
Rating: 
Summary: Questions on the logic of the book.
Review: In this book Mary Staniszewski tries a nearly impossible task of defining art. Her twist on the subject is a fresh look at art in the modern movements, but she also splits the art world into two time periods. The early works by those who are termed the old masters (e.g. Michealangelo, DaVinci, Bernini and other pre-1800's artists) do not fit into the definition of modern art that she presents in the book. If she were to have answered the questions in a little more logical fasion I may have been able to follow the first chapter better. But as it stands I don't see how simply useing the date of the modern definition of art can prevent or select an artists work for either being art or not being art. Some other great questions would be: What are Mary Anne Staniszewski's credentials? Has she ever made art herself? Is she an Art Historian? As for the descriptive portion of the book, it is wonderful and well worth reading. I would recommend getting this book just for its documentation of historical events and how they effected modern art movements.
Rating: 
Summary: A profoundly stupid book.
Review: Marcel Duchamp's ready-made urinal is not art! The urinal is a urinal, and Duchamp, like Mary Anne Staniszewski, is an idiot. The light Staniszewski "throws...on individual works and the often mystifying criteria by which they are valued" obviously emanates from a very dim bulb. The mystery would clear up if only she and other baffled readers would study the works harder--much harder!--and think independently, rather than indulge in facile prattling and one-size-fits-all schools of thought. Art is never easy, nor is it general.From Staniszewski's hopelessly middlebrow perspective, works of art are polluted with general ideas, central themes, cultural representations, object lessons, and encrypted messages; they are seen to represent groups, cultures, and ideas. Only philistines view art in this way. Staniszewski makes all too obvious observations concerning the historical under-representation of various groups in the artistic community (whatever that is?!), the fads and foibles of the marketplace, and pop culture. This is social and political commentary which has nothing to do with art; furthermore, as social commentary Staniszewski's points are by turns disengenuous, obvious, or just plain stupid. Great art is not about social intent, group representation, political agendas, or philosophical ideas. An artistic work is purely an individual expression, and an experience to be enjoyed by others as individuals. Great art effects only the individual and it effects far too few of these to produce measurable societal trends. Creative originality is not about the fanciful, the outrageous, the shocking, or the vulgar--like that idiotic urinal. Silly people see art in this way. Art is about the singular experience expressed in a singular way. Art will never "make sense" to those who simply assimilate other people's dull opinions and ideas, or to those who see themselves as members of a group rather than as individuals. If you are going to study art: start by studying what great artists have said about their own art; study as many and as varied a collection of artists as is possible; and, try--hard!--to create your own works of art. Maybe then you'll see what art is all about, realize just how rare artistic talent is, and appreciate how incredibly difficult it is to develop even when that talent exists.
Rating:
Summary: This is a great book!
Review: Mary Ann Staniszewski's "Believing is Seeing" is a GREAT book. It is articulately written with many reproductions and is used in many university and college level art courses across the country!! Navigating the unnecessarily murky waters of modern and contemporary art, this book is refreshing in its insightful directness about art, culture and value.
Rating:
Summary: This is a great book!
Review: Mary Ann Staniszewski's "Believing is Seeing" is a GREAT book. It is articulately written with many reproductions and is used in many university and college level art courses across the country!! Navigating the unnecessarily murky waters of modern and contemporary art, this book is refreshing in its insightful directness about art, culture and value.
Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Counterpoint to Traditional Art History
Review: Mary Anne Staniszewski's "Believing is Seeing" is a clearly written, carefully illustrated, thought provoking overview of the meaning of "Art". Distilled from introductory lectures on contemporary art, culture and critical theory delivered at the Rhode Island School of Design more than a decade ago, "Believing is Seeing" provides a useful counterpoint to mainstream art history texts by challenging traditional, transhistorical views of aesthetic value. Appropriately subtitled "Creating the Culture of Art", Staniszewski's book demonstrates that Art is something "that has a specific history and belongs to a particular era." What our culture generally calls "Art" is an invention of the past two hundred years. Thus, modern culture has appropriated the paintings, frescoes, sculptures, and artifacts of earlier times and cultures (where they had historically specific meanings) and labelled them "Art". Modern culture applies this label even though the original creators of these representations and objects would not have regarded their creations as Art in the way we commonly use the term. The task of defining and identifying Art in contemporary Western society is largely a function of the institutional structures--the museums, galleries, auction houses, and publications--that create the culture of Art. In this way, Marcel Duchamp can mount a urinal on a pedestal and this plumbing fixture becomes "Art", acquires meaning and value, through validation by these institutional arbiters of the Art world. Rejecting essentialism, Staniszewski argues that aesthetic value and meaning are socially constructed, the products of a particular historical moment and culture. As individuals, we may not consider Duchamp's urinal anything more than that--a urinal--but that does not obviate the fact that cultural institutions have conferred (rightly or wrongly) some greater meaning (and value) on the object. "Believing is Seeing" is not an important book; it is a book which, like its thesis, is the product of a particular historical moment and culture. It is, however, full of provocative and challenging ideas about how culture creates meaning and value. And for this reason alone, it is worth careful reading.
|
