<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Coffee table book - a must-not read
Review: I had high hopes for this book but the writing is deplorable. Granted the illustrations are nice, but the essays, Ms. Dixon's in particular cycle over the same material again and again and never lead to any conclusions or opinions. It is if it was written by committee and total number of words was more important than content. There is no personal voice, no direction, no apparent humanity. Most of the useable content here is available elsewhere, and better written, more concise, and more thought through. At the end you are left knowing less than when you started. Save your time!
Rating:
Summary: Poorly written and conceived text, no insight
Review: I have to agree with the other reviews of "Women Who Ruled". I visited the exhibition here at the University of Michigan last spring and enjoyed the exhibition, so I purchased the book hoping to gain some insight from the curator. Unfortunately, Annette Dixon, the curator at UM, seems to rely too heavily on other texts as the basis for her writing. There is not much in the way of personal opinion derived from first hand observation of the artwork itself. Much of the iconography,of which I would have enjoyed having some analysis, was completely ignored. What I got in it's place was watered down, cloyingly academic essays that took no positions, offered no opinions, and sat on the proverbial fence.
Fortunately there is an essay by Mieke Bal. From her writing, I can tell that at least she has strong opinions and is not afraid to voice them. It is too bad she did not write the whole text, instead of Dr. Dixon.
Overall it is a staid, stale, intellectually unadventerous exercise. The University of Michigan should be ashamed by putting out such a poorly conceived and written book. I hope they will learn from their mistakes and publish texts that are better companions to their exhibitions.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly written and conceived text, no insight
Review: I have to agree with the other reviews of "Women Who Ruled". I visited the exhibition here at the University of Michigan last spring and enjoyed the exhibition, so I purchased the book hoping to gain some insight from the curator. Unfortunately, Annette Dixon, the curator at UM, seems to rely too heavily on other texts as the basis for her writing. There is not much in the way of personal opinion derived from first hand observation of the artwork itself. Much of the iconography,of which I would have enjoyed having some analysis, was completely ignored. What I got in it's place was watered down, cloyingly academic essays that took no positions, offered no opinions, and sat on the proverbial fence.
Fortunately there is an essay by Mieke Bal. From her writing, I can tell that at least she has strong opinions and is not afraid to voice them. It is too bad she did not write the whole text, instead of Dr. Dixon.
Overall it is a staid, stale, intellectually unadventerous exercise. The University of Michigan should be ashamed by putting out such a poorly conceived and written book. I hope they will learn from their mistakes and publish texts that are better companions to their exhibitions.
Rating: 
Summary: pandering and full of stereotypes
Review: In "Women Who Ruled: Queens, Goddesses, Amazons in Renaissance and Baroque Art" it as if I were seeing Rashoman without ever getting to the final viewpoint that ties it all together and actually gives the woman's version of events. There is no continuity of thought or purpose. The writing is, for the most part, very conservative and relies on pigeonholing women into the usual stereotypical roles, virgin, whore, mother, etc. The ideas put forward of power being of the utmost importance, calls into question the authors priorities. Perhaps they are simply pandering to an audience, giving them what they want to hear. All power is not positive, neither are all powerful women. Overall it was an unpleasant experience to read this book. The authors use the sort of language that speaks to academia and no one else. It fails to engage the reader throughout and then abruptly ends. It is a convoluted text with little relevance.
Pick up Art and Feminism by Helena Reckitt and Peggy Phelan instead.
Rating:
Summary: pandering and full of stereotypes
Review: In "Women Who Ruled: Queens, Goddesses, Amazons in Renaissance and Baroque Art" it as if I were seeing Rashoman without ever getting to the final viewpoint that ties it all together and actually gives the woman's version of events. There is no continuity of thought or purpose. The writing is, for the most part, very conservative and relies on pigeonholing women into the usual stereotypical roles, virgin, whore, mother, etc. The ideas put forward of power being of the utmost importance, calls into question the authors priorities. Perhaps they are simply pandering to an audience, giving them what they want to hear. All power is not positive, neither are all powerful women. Overall it was an unpleasant experience to read this book. The authors use the sort of language that speaks to academia and no one else. It fails to engage the reader throughout and then abruptly ends. It is a convoluted text with little relevance.
Pick up Art and Feminism by Helena Reckitt and Peggy Phelan instead.
<< 1 >>
|
