Documents In World History The Modern Centuries From 1500 to the Present Book

Art History by Stokstad et al. is widely used as the textbook for introductory art history courses. From the start it’s clear how this is what both the two volume and the abridged single volume editions are meant for.

Keeping that in mind, I’d say it’s not a bad textbook. As far as I can tell, all central concepts and production techniques from ancient to modern are being introduced and a few basics of art critique can be found hidden in between the pages as well.

Considering the purpose, the choice of presentation is unsurprising and familiar. Just like modern art history textbooks after Vasari tend to do, the subject matter is divided into time periods. So, the first volume starts with prehistoric art, and the second volume ends with contemporary art. Mutatis mutandis for the abridged single volume edition.

All major influences to Western art are handled with in lesser or greater depth. In this case anything related to the history of Western art gets a slightly deeper handling than the rest. The choices made clearly reflect current art history curricula in many universities, so this is less a fault and more a feature.

The quality of pictures is good, at least in the edition I have, and the pictures used in the text are referenced clearly, even when they land on the same page with the text.

There are a few additional points worth making, though. I’m fairly certain that the book isn’t going to satisfy every reader, the non-student reader especially.

To being with, a bias towards Western art is obvious, clear and non-apologetic, and Renaissance is taken as one very important big thing. Now you may have various opinions when it comes to Renaissance, but considering the massive change in Western art I’d venture to say some emphasis is called for. Otherwise it’d be impossible to meet what is being taught in introductory courses.

However, is the bias towards Western art even a problem? Several reviewers seem to think so. However, I don’t think that’s a problem at all. A textbook should fit a fairly wide selection of basic art history courses, and as such it obviously should to concentrate on the movements and time periods mostly discussed during those courses. Change the courses and the textbooks produced will follow.

There is also an obvious explanation for the lack of wider and deeper handling of non-Western, e.g. African Art (or whatever your favourite non-western art might be), somewhat resented in several reviews. A textbook is not a place for introducing novel research topics or actual original research. The contents of Stokstad et al. reflects the fact that here is much research to be done. But once the academics have done their part, the research will end up in textbooks just like the existing research results have ended up in the current volume(s).

Also, I could disagree easily with some selections done for the works presented. As a matter of fact I do. But then again, everyone has their favourite pieces, and sometimes tastes just don’t coincide. Disagreeing with maybe a few dozen out of hundreds of picks is not that bad. Either I am a Stokstad et al. fan or have read at least some of the same books and articles they have.

In summary, there is nothing badly wrong. The general readership might find books more suitable for their taste and needs, though, as this is clearly a textbook and should be used, and assessed, as such.

Obviously no treatment of art history is perfect, and any assessment of a textbook is a personal opinion to a certain degree. That said, I believe that Stokstad et al. have produced a textbook worth using.