<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: english please
Review: I am a south african student with english distinctions who was prescribed this book for a class in gender studies. I would appreciate it if the author could rewrite the book in understandable english. It seems to me as though Mr Davis has said absolutely nothing worth reading in as many confusing and complicated words as possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Only a beginning
Review: While I agree with the previous review in regard to Davis' essay (and his other work as well), I do think the collection as a whole is a valuable addition to any art historian's library. While the essays vary wildly in quality of writing and scholarship, the overall effect of even a brief skimming gave me a sense for the numerous and distinct methodolgies currently being used in gay and lesbian studies. I would emphasize something that Davis himself concedes in the introduction: this collection is prelimary and is NOT meant to at all be definitive or complete. It simply presents some of the best and boldest work being done in the then (1994) relatively new field of gay and lesbian studies as applied to art history. As for Davis, I do think his essay is unnecessarily aloof and difficult. In short, it is an entirely unpleasant bit of intellectual muscle-flexing. Unlike the previous reviewer, I do believe Davis has volumes of worthy ideas to contribute (including in this essay). He should remember, then, that his job as a historian (and teacher) is not to impress but to communicate. That said, the reader should pay closest attention to Michael Camille's wonderful essay on "gay inconograpy" followed by stellar contributions from Christopher Reed, Jonathan Weinberg, and Ann Gibson. Particularly for those art historians (gay or straight) trying to resolve issues of subjectivity in their work, this collection can provide a liberating example of scholars who have put down the sword and shield, interjecting their hearts (as well as their intellects) without apology. And I would even say that Davis' essay on Winkelmann, however poorly worded, is groundbreaking in its suggestion that art history itself is a discipline conceived out of a homoerotic passion for the beautiful.
<< 1 >>
| 
