Skip to main content
Humanities LibreTexts

2.5: Reading- Defining Art from Modernity to Globalization

  • Page ID
    28215
  • Modernity to Globalization

    This section addresses art and architecture from around 1850 up to the present.

    During this period, art changed beyond recognition. The various academies still held sway in Europe. It is true that the hierarchy of the genres was breaking down and the classical ideal was becoming less convincing.

    What counted as art in much of the nineteenth century remained pretty stable. Whether in sculpture, painting, drawing or printmaking, artworks represented recognizable subjects in a credible human-centered space. To be sure, subjects became less high-flown, compositional effects often deliberately jarring and surface handling more explicit. There were plenty of academicians and commentators who believed these changes amounted to the end of civilization, but from today’s perspective they seem like small shifts of emphasis.

    In contrast, art in the first part of the twentieth century underwent a rapid gear change. Art historians agree that during this time artists began to radically revise picture making and sculpture. With the invention of photography and it being employed as the dominant conveyor of realism, painting undergoes a period of experimentation. Painters flattened out pictorial space, broke with conventional viewpoints and discarded local color. (‘Local color’ is the term used for the color things appear in the world. From the early twentieth century, painters began to experiment with non-local color.) Sculptors began to leave the surface of their works in a rough, seemingly unfinished state; they increasingly created partial figures and abandoned plinths or, alternatively, inflated the scale of their bases. Architects abandoned revivalist styles and rich ornamentation. To take one often cited example from painting, while the art of Paul Cézanne (1839–1906) is based on a recognizable motif, say a landscape, when looking at these paintings we get the distinct impression that the overall organization of the colors and structural elements matters as much or more than the scene depicted. To retain fidelity to his sense impressions, Cézanne is compelled to find a new order and coherence internal to the canvas. Frequently this turns into incoherence as he tries to manage the tension between putting marks on a flat surface and his external observation of space.

    In fifteen years some artists would take this problem – the recognition that making art involved attention to its own formal conditions that are not reducible to representing external things – through Cubism to a fully abstract art. Conventionally, this story is told as a heroic progression of ‘movements’ and ‘styles’, each giving way to the next in the sequence: Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Dada, Constructivism, Surrealism… Each changing of the guard is perceived as an advance and almost a necessary next step on the road to some preset goal. This rapid turnover of small groups and personal idioms can seem bewildering and, in fact, this is a minimal version of this story. Whether they sought new expressive resources, novel ways of conveying experience or innovative techniques for representing the modern world, modern artists turned their backs on the tried and tested forms of mimetic resemblance. But what counted as art changed too. Bits of the everyday world began to be incorporated into artworks – as collage or montage in two-dimensional art forms; in construction and assemblage in three-dimensional ones. The inclusion of found materials played a fundamental role in modern art. The use of modern materials and technologies – steel, concrete, photography – did something similar. Some artists abandoned easel painting or sculpture to make direct interventions in the world through the production of usable things, whether chairs or illustrated news magazines. Not all artists elected to work with these new techniques and materials, and many carried on in the traditional ways or attempted to adapt them to new circumstances.

    Autonomy and Modernity

    Broadly speaking, there are two different ways of thinking about modern art, or two different versions of the story. One way is to view art as something that can be practiced (and thought of) as an activity radically separate from everyday life or worldly concerns. From this point of view, art is said to be ‘autonomous’ from society – that is, it is believed to be self-sustaining and self-referring. One particularly influential version of this story suggests that modern art should be viewed as a process by which features extraneous to a particular branch of art would be progressively eliminated, and painters or sculptors would come to concentrate on problems specific to their domain. Another way of thinking about modern art is to view it as responding to the modern world, and to see modern artists immersing themselves in the conflicts and challenges of society. That is to say, some modern artists sought ways of conveying the changing experiences generated in Europe by the twin processes of commercialization (the commodification of everyday life) and urbanization. From this point of view, modern art is a way of reflecting on the transformations that created what we call, in a sort of shorthand, ‘modernity’.

    Greenberg and Autonomy

    While it has its roots in the nineteenth century, the approach to modern art as an autonomous practice is particularly associated with the ideas of the English critics Roger Fry (1866–1934) and Clive Bell (1881–1964), the critic Clement Greenberg (1909–94) and the New York Museum of Modern Art’s director Alfred H. Barr (1902–81). For a period this view largely became the common sense of modern art (O’Brian, 1986–95, 4 vols; Barr, 1974 [1936]). This version of modernism is itself complex. The argument presumes that art is self-contained and artists are seen to grapple with technical problems of painting and sculpture, and the point of reference is to artworks that have gone before. This approach can be described as ‘formalist’ (paying exclusive attention to formal matters), or, perhaps more productively drawing on a term employed by the critic Meyer Schapiro (1904–96), as ‘internalist’ (a somewhat less pejorative way of saying the same thing) (Schapiro, 1978 [1937]).

    Rather than cloaking artifice, modern art, such as that made by Wassily Kandinsky (1866–1944) drew attention to the conventions, procedures and techniques supposedly ‘inherent’ in a given form of art. Modern art set about ‘creating something valid solely on its own terms’ (Ibid., p. 8). For painting, this meant turning away from illusion and story-telling to concentrate on the features that were fundamental to the practice – producing aesthetic effects by placing marks on a flat, bounded surface. For sculpture, it entailed arranging or assembling forms in space.

    Vassily_Kandinsky_1913_-_Landscape_With_Red_Spots.jpg
    Wassily Kandinsky, Landscape with Red Spots, 1913. Work is in the public domain.

    It important to understand that the account of autonomous art, however internalist it may seem, developed as a response to the social and political conditions of modern societies. In his 1939 essay ‘Avant-garde and kitsch’, Greenberg suggested that art was in danger from two linked challenges: the rise of the dictators (Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco) and the commercialized visual culture of modern times (the kitsch, or junk, of his title). Dictatorial regimes turned their backs on ambitious art and curried favor with the masses by promoting a debased form of realism that was easy to comprehend. Seemingly distinct from art made by dictatorial fiat, the visual culture of liberal capitalism pursued instant, canned entertainment that would appeal to the broadest number of paying customers. This pre-packaged emotional distraction was geared to easy, unchallenging consumption. Kitsch traded on sentimentality, common-sense values and flashy surface effects. The two sides of this pincer attack ghettoized the values associated with art. Advanced art, in this argument, like all human values, faced an imminent danger. Greenberg argued that, in response to the impoverished culture of both modern capitalist democracy and dictatorship, artists withdrew to create novel and challenging artworks that maintained the possibility for critical experience and attention. He claimed that this was the only way that art could be kept alive in modern society. In this essay, Greenberg put forward a left-wing sociological account of the origins of modernist autonomy; others came to similar conclusions from positions of cultural despair or haughty disdain for the masses.

    The period from around 1850 onwards has been tumultuous: it has been regularly punctuated by revolutions, wars and civil wars, and has witnessed the rise of nation states, the growth and spread of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism, and decolonization. Sometimes artists tried to keep their distance from the historical whirlwind, at other moments they flung themselves into the eye of the storm. Even the most abstract developments and autonomous trends can be thought of as embedded in this historical process. Modern artists could be cast in opposition to repressive societies, or mass visual culture in the west, by focusing on themes of personal liberty and individual defiance. The New York School championed by Greenberg coincided with this political situation and with the high point of US mass cultural dominance – advertising, Hollywood cinema, popular music and the rest. In many ways, the work of this group of abstract painters presents the test case for assessing the claim that modern art offers a critical alternative to commercial visual culture. It could seem a plausible argument, but the increasing absorption of modern art into middle-class museum culture casts an increasing doubt over these claims. At the same time, the figurative art that was supposed to have been left in the hands of the dictators continued to be made in a wide variety of forms. If figurative art had been overlooked by critics during the high point of abstract art, it made a spectacular comeback with Pop Art.

    The Emergence of Modern Art in Paris

    Let’s take a step back to the middle of the nineteenth century and consider the emergence of modern art in Paris. The new art that developed with Gustave Courbet (1819–77), Manet and the Impressionists entailed a self-conscious break with the art of the past. These modern artists took seriously the representation of their own time. In place of allegorical figures in togas or scenes from the Bible, modern artists concerned themselves with the things around them. When asked to include angels in a painting for a church, Courbet is said to have replied ‘I have never seen angels. Show me an angel and I will paint one.’ But these artists were not just empirical recording devices. The formal or technical means employed in modern art are jarring and unsettling, and this has to be a fundamental part of the story. A tension between the means and the topics depicted, between surface and subject, is central to what this art was. Nevertheless, we miss something crucial if we do not attend to the artists’ choices of subjects. Principally, these artists sought the signs of change and novelty – multiple details and scenarios that made up contemporary life. This meant they paid a great deal of attention to the new visual culture associated with commercialized leisure.

    Greenberg contrasted the mainstream of modern art, concerned with autonomous aesthetic experience and formal innovation, with what he called ‘dead ends’ – directions in art that he felt led nowhere. Even when restricted to the European tradition, this marginalized much of the most significant art made in interwar Europe – Dada, Constructivism and Surrealism (Greenberg, 1961). The groups of artists producing this art – usually referred to collectively as the ‘avant-garde’ or the ‘historical avant-garde’ – wanted to fuse art and life, and often based their practice on a socialist rejection of bourgeois culture (see, in particular, Bürger, 1984). From their position in western Europe, the Dadaists mounted an assault on the irrationalism and violence of militarism and the repressive character of capitalist culture; in collages, montages, assemblages and performances, they created visual juxtapositions aimed at shocking the middle-class audience and intended to reveal connections hidden behind everyday appearances. The material for this was drawn from mass-circulation magazines, newspapers and other printed ephemera. The Constructivists participated in the process of building a new society in the USSR, turning to the creation of utilitarian objects (or, at least, prototypes for them). The Surrealists combined ideas from psychoanalysis and Marxism in an attempt to unleash those forces repressed by mainstream society; the dream imagery is most familiar, but experiments with found objects and collage were also prominent. These avant-garde groups tried to produce more than refined aesthetic experiences for a restricted audience; they proffered their skills to help to change the world. In this work the cross-over to visual culture is evident; communication media and design played an important role. Avant-garde artists began to design book covers, posters, fabrics, clothing, interiors, monuments and other useful things. They also began to merge with journalism by producing photographs and undertaking layout work. In avant-garde circles, architects, photographers and artists mixed and exchanged ideas. For those committed to autonomy of art, this kind of activity constitutes a denial of the shaping conditions of art and betrayal of art for propaganda, but the avant-garde were attempting something else – they sought a new social role for art. One way to explore this debate is by switching from painting and sculpture to architecture and design.

    Responses to the Modern World

    Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968), who is now seen as one of the most important artists of the twentieth century, occupies an important place in destabilization of the art object. Duchamp started out as a Cubist, but broke with the idea of art as a matter of special visual experience and turned his attention to puns and perceptual or conceptual conundrums (Duchamp, 1975). These activities brought him into the orbit of Dada in Paris and New York, but this was probably nothing more than a convenient alliance. Duchamp played games with words and investigated the associations of ordinary objects. He also messed around with gender conventions, inventing a female alter ego called Rrose Sélavy – a pun on ‘Eros, c’est la vie’ or ‘Eros is life’. Critics and other artists have particularly focused on the strain of his work known as the ‘readymades’. From 1914, Duchamp began singling out ordinary objects, such as a bottle rack, for his own attention and amusement and that of a few friends. Sometimes he altered these things in some small way, adding words and a title or joining them with something else in a way that shifted their meaning; with Bicycle Wheel, he attached an inverted bike wheel to a wooden stool – he seems to have been particularly interested in the shadow play this object created. We can see this odd object among the clutter of Duchamp’s studio on West 67th Street in the photograph by Henri-Pierre Roche. He called these altered everyday things ‘assisted readymades’.

    Duchamp was interested in interrogating the mass-produced objects created by his society and the common-sense definitions and values that such things accrued. Mischievously, he probed the definitions and values of his culture for a small group of like-minded friends. It isn’t at all clear that any of this was meant to be art; in fact, he explicitly posed the idea of making ‘works’ that could not be thought of as ‘art’ (Nesbit, 2000). Nevertheless, artists in the late 1950s and the 1960s became fascinated with this legacy and began to think of art as something the artist selected or posited, rather than something he or she composed or made. According to this idea, the artist could designate anything as art; what was important was the way that this decision allowed things to be perceived in a new light. This was to lead to a fundamentally different conception of art practice.

    hqdefault-5.jpg

    The link to this video is provided at the bottom of this page.

    With the breakup of the hegemony of the New York School, artists began to look at those features of modern art that had been left out of the formalist story. During this period, Duchamp came to replace Picasso or Matisse as the touchstone for young artists, but he was just one tributary of what became a torrent. Perhaps most significantly, painting and anything we might straightforwardly recognize as sculpture began to take a back seat. A host of experimental forms and new media came to prominence: performance art, video, works made directly in or out of the landscape, installations, photography and a host of other forms and practices. These works often engaged with the representation of modernity and the shifting pattern of world power relations we call ‘globalization’.

    National, International, Cosmopolitan

    Whether holding itself apart from the visual culture of modernity or immersed in it, modern art developed not in the world’s most powerful economy (Britain), but in the places that were most marked by ‘uneven and combined development’: places where explosive tensions between traditional rural societies and the changes wrought by capitalism were most acute (Trotsky, 1962 [1928/1906]). In these locations, people only recently out of the fields encountered the shocks and pleasures of grand-metropolitan cities. As the sociologist of modernity Georg Simmel (1858–1918) suggested: ‘the city sets up a deep contrast with small-town and rural life with reference to the social foundations of psychic life’. In contrast to the over-stimulation of the senses in the city, Simmel thought that in the rural situation ‘the rhythm of life and sensory mental imagery flows more slowly, more habitually, and more evenly’ (Simmel, 1997 [1903], p. 175). This situation applies first of all to Paris (see Clark, 1984; Harvey, 2003; Prendergast, 1992). In Paris, the grand boulevards and new palaces of commercial entertainment went hand in hand with the ‘zone’, a vast shanty town ringing the city that was occupied by workers and those who eked out a precarious life. Whereas the Impressionists concentrated on the bourgeois city of bars, boulevards and boudoirs, the photographer Eugène Atget (1857–1927) represented the Paris that was disappearing – the medieval city with its winding alleys and old iron work – or those working-class quarters composed of cheap lodgings and traders recycling worn-out commodities (Nesbit, 1992; see also Benjamin, 1983). This clash of ways of life generated different ways of inhabiting and viewing the city with class and gender at their core. Access to the modern city and its representations was more readily available to middle-class men than to those with less social authority, whether they were working people, women or minority ethnic or religious groups (Wolff, 1985, pp. 37–46; Pollock, 1988, pp. 50–90).

    Eugne_Atget_French_-_Chiffonier_Ragpicker_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
    Eugène Atget, Chiffonier (Ragpicker), c. 1899–1901. Work is in the public domain.

    Contradictions

    Before the Second World War, the alternative centers of modernism were also key sites of uneven and combined development: Berlin, Budapest, Milan, Moscow and Prague. In these places, large-scale industry was created by traditional elites in order to develop the production capacities required to compete militarily with Britain. Factory production was plopped down into largely agrarian societies, generating massive shocks to social equilibrium. In many ways, Moscow is the archetypal version of this pattern of acute contradictions. Before the 1917 Revolution, Moscow was the site of enormous and up-to-date factories, including the world’s largest engineering plant, but was set in a sea of peasant backwardness. This is one reason that Vladimir Lenin described Russia as the weakest link in the international-capitalist chain.

    This set of contradictions put a particular perception of time at the center of modern art. Opposition to the transformations of society that were underway could be articulated in one of two ways, and in an important sense both were fantasy projections: on the one hand, artists looked to societies that were seen as more ‘primitive’ as an antidote to the upheavals and shallow glamour of capitalism. On the other hand, they attempted a leap into the future. Both perspectives – Primitivism and Futurism – entailed a profound hostility to the world as it had actually developed, and both orientations were rooted in the conditions of an uneven and combined world system.

    The vast urban centers – Paris, Berlin, and Moscow – attracted artists, chancers, intellectuals, poets and revolutionaries. The interchange between people from different nations bred a form of cultural internationalism. In interwar Paris, artists from Spain, Russia, Mexico, Japan and a host of other places rubbed shoulders. Modernist artists attempted to transcend parochial and local conditions and create a formal ‘language’ valid beyond time and place, and ‘the school of Paris’ or the ‘international modern movement’ signified a commitment to a culture more capacious and vibrant than anything the word ‘national’ could contain. The critic Harold Rosenberg (1906–78) stated this theme explicitly. Rejecting the idea that ‘national life’ could be a source of inspiration, he suggested that the modernist culture of Paris, was a ‘no-place’ and a ‘no-time’ and only Nazi tanks returned the city to France by wiping out modernist internationalism (Rosenberg, 1970 [1940]).

    A Move to New York

    ‘No-place’ then shifted continent. Perhaps for the only time in its history, after the Second World War modernism was positioned at the heart of world power – when a host of exiles from European fascism and war relocated in New York. American abstract art was centered on New York and a powerful series of institutions: the Museum of Modern Art, Peggy Guggenheim’s gallery Art of This Century and a host of small independent galleries run by private dealers (including Betty Parsons, Samuel Koontz and Sidney Janis). In the main, these artists, such as Jackson Pollock (1912–56), Mark Rothko (1903–70), Arshile Gorky (1904–48), Robert Motherwell (1915–91) and Barnett Newman (1905–70), and associated critics (Greenberg and Rosenberg) were formed during the 1930s in the circles of the New York Left: they were modernist internationalists opposed to US parochialism in art and politics. After the war, they retained this commitment to an international modern art, while the politics drained away or was purged in the Cold War. The period of US hegemony in modern art coincided with the optimum interest in autonomous form and pure ‘optical’ experience. This was the time when artists working in the modernist idiom were least interested in articulating epochal changes and most focused on art as an act of individual realization and a singular encounter between the viewer and the artwork. At the same time, these artists continued to keep their distance from mainstream American values and mass culture. Some champions of autonomous art are inclined to think art came to a shuddering halt with the end of the New York School. Alternatively, we can see Conceptual Art as initiating or reinvigorating a new phase of modern art that continues in the global art of today.

    It should be apparent from this brief sketch that the predominant ways of thinking about modern art have focused on a handful of international centers and national schools – even when artists and critics proclaim their allegiance to internationalism. The title of Irving Sandler’s book The Triumph of American Painting is one telling symptom (Sandler, 1970). There is a story about geopolitics – about the relationship between the west and the rest – embedded in the history of modern art. These powerful forms of modernism cannot be swept aside, but increasingly critics and art historians are paying attention to other stories; to the artworks made in other places and in other ways, and which were sidelined in the dominant accounts of art’s development. A focus on art in a globalized art world leads to revising the national stories told about modernism. This history is currently being recast as a process of global interconnections rather than an exclusively western-centered chronicle, and commentators are becoming more attentive to encounters and interchanges between westerners and people from what has helpfully been called the ‘majority world’, in art as in other matters. This term – majority world – was used by the Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam, to describe what the term ‘third world’ had once designated. We use it here to characterize those people and places located outside centers of western affluence and power; they constitute the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants and this reminds us that western experience is a minority condition and not the norm.

    The Local and the Global

    The reality is not that the majority world will be transformed into a high-tech consumer paradise. In fact, inequality is increasing across the world. What is referred to as globalization is the most recent phase of uneven and combined development. The new clash of hypermodern and traditional forms of economic activity and social life are taking place side by side; megacities spring up alongside the ‘planet of slums’, and communication technologies play an important role in this clash of space and time. Recent debates on globalization and art involve a rejection of modernist internationalism; instead, artists and art historians are engaged with local conditions of artistic production and the way these mesh in an international system of global art making. Modern art is currently being remade and rethought as a series of much more varied responses to contemporaneity around the world. Artists now draw on particular local experiences, and also on forms of representation from popular traditions. Engagement with Japanese popular prints played an important role in Impressionism, but in recent years this sort of cultural crossing has undergone an explosion.

    Drawing local image cultures into the international spaces of modern art has once more shifted the character of art. The paradox is that the cultural means that are being employed – video art, installation, large color photographs and so forth – seem genuinely international. Walk into many of the large exhibitions around the globe and you will see artworks referring to particular geopolitical conditions, but employing remarkably similar conventions and techniques. This cosmopolitanism risks underestimating the real forces shaping the world; connection and mobility for some international artists goes hand in hand with uprootedness and the destruction of habitat and ways of life for others.

    Conclusion

    This overview has provided examples of the shifting perceptions and definitions of art across time. The first part demonstrated the changing role of the artist and diverse types of art in the medieval and Renaissance periods. The second part outlined the evaluation of art in the academies, issues of style, and changes to patronage, where art and its consumption became increasingly part of the public sphere during the period 1600 to 1850. The last part addressed the way in which artists broke from all conventions and the influence of globalization on art production, in the period 1850 to the present.

    Works Cited

    • Adamson, J.S.A. (1999) The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien Régime 1500–1750, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    • Alberti, L.B. (1966 [1435]) On Painting (trans. J.R. Spencer), New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Arciszweska, B. and McKellar, E. (2004) Articulating British Classicism: New Approaches to Eighteenth-Century Architecture, Aldershot and Burlington, VT, Ashgate.
    • Bailey, C. (1987) ‘Conventions of the eighteenth-century cabinet de tableaux: Blondel d’Azincourt’s La première idée de la curiosité’, Art Bulletin, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 431–47.
    • Bailey, C. (2002) Patriotic Taste: Collecting Modern Art in Pre-Revolutionary Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Bailey, G.A. (1999) Art on the Jesuit Missions in Asia and Latin America, 1542–1773, Toronto and London, University of Toronto Press.
    • Barr, A.H. (1974 [1936]) Cubism and Abstract Art, New York, Museum of Modern Art (exhibition catalogue).
    • Baudelaire, C. (1981 [1859]) ‘On photography’ in Newhall, B. (ed.) Photography: Essays and Images, New York, Secker & Warburg, pp. 112–13.
    • Baxandall, M. (1971) Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350–1450, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
    • Baxandall, M. (1972) Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
    • Baxandall, M. (1980) The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
    • Belting, H. (1994) Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago, IL and London, University of Chicago Press.
    • Benjamin, W. (1983) Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, London, Verso.
    • Bergdoll, B. (2000) European Architecture 1750–1890, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Bermingham, A. (2000) Learning to Draw: Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Blanning, T.C.W. (2002) The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660–1789, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Bürger, P. (1984) Theory of the Avant-Garde, Manchester, Manchester University Press; Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.
    • Clark, T.J. (1982) Image of the People. Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, London, Thames & Hudson.
    • Clark, T.J. (1984) The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, London, Thames & Hudson.
    • Clayton, T. (1997) The English Print, 1688–1802, London and New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
    • Connell, S.M. (1976) The Employment of Sculptors and Stonemasons in Venice in the Fifteenth Century (doctoral thesis), Warburg Institute, University of London.
    • Craske, M. (1997) Art in Europe 1700–1830: A History of the Visual Arts in an Era of Unprecedented Urban Economic Growth, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Crown, P. (1990) ‘British Rococo as social and political style’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 269–82.
    • Duchamp, M. (1975) The Essential Writings of Marcel Duchamp (ed. M. Sanouillet and E. Peterson), London, Thames & Hudson.
    • Edwards, S. (ed.) (1999) Art and its Histories: A Reader, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Elias, N. (1983) The Court Society (trans. E. Jephcott), Oxford, Blackwell.
    • Gilbert, C. (1985) ‘A statement of the aesthetic attitude around 1230’, Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 125–52.
    • Gordon, D. (2003) The Fifteenth-Century Italian Paintings, National Gallery Catalogues, London, Yale University Press.
    • Greenberg, C. (1961) Art and Culture: Critical Essays, Boston, MA, Beacon Press.
    • Greenberg, C. (1986 [1939]) ‘Avant-garde and kitsch’ in O’Brian, J. (ed.) Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. 1: Perceptions and Judgements, 1939–1944, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp. 5–22.
    • Greenberg, C. (1993 [1960]) ‘Modernist painting’ in O’Brian, J. (ed.) Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. 4: Modernism with a Vengeance, 1957–1969, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp. 85–100.
    • Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
    • Hardie, P. (1993) ‘Ut Pictura Poesis? Horace and the visual arts’ in Horace 2000: A Celebration for the Bi-millennium, London, Duckworth, pp. 120–39.
    • Harris, A.S. (2008) Seventeenth-Century Art and Architecture (2nd edn), London, Laurence King.
    • Harrison, C., Wood, P. and Gaiger, J. (eds) (1998) Art in Theory 1815–1900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford, Blackwell.
    • Harvey, D. (2003) Paris: Capital of Modernity, London and New York, Routledge.
    • Haskell, F. (1980) Patrons and Painters: A Study in the Relations between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
    • Haskell, F. and Penny, N. (1981) Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Hauser, A. (1962 [1951]) The Social History of Art. Vol. 2: Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque; Vol. 3. Rococo, Classicism and Romanticism (2nd edn), London, Routledge.
    • Haynes, C. (2006) Pictures and Popery: Art and Religion in England, 1660–1760, Aldershot, Ashgate.
    • Hemingway, A. and Vaughan, W. (eds) (1998) Art in Bourgeois Society 1790–1850, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • Hills, H. (ed.) (2011) Rethinking the Baroque, Farnham, Ashgate.
    • Honour, H. (1968) Neo-classicism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
    • Honour, H. (1979) Romanticism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
    • Hyde, M. (2006) Making up the Rococo: François Boucher and his Critics, Los Angeles, CA and London, Getty Research Institute.
    • Irwin, D. (1997) Neoclassicism, London, Phaidon.
    • Langdon, H. (1998) Caravaggio: A Life, London, Chatto & Windus.
    • Lee, R. (1967) Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting, New York, W.W. Norton.
    • Levy, E. (2004) Propaganda and the Jesuit Baroque, Berkeley, CA and London, University of California Press.
    • Lichtenstein, J. (2008) The Blind Spot: An Essay on the Relations between Painting and Sculpture in the Modern Age, Los Angeles, CA, Getty Research Institute.
    • Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds) (2012) Art & Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University.
    • McClellan, A. (1994) Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • McClellan, A. (1996) ‘Watteau’s dealer: Gersaint and the marketing of art in eighteenth-century Paris’, Art Bulletin, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 439–53.
    • Montias, J.M. (1982) Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-economic Study of the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
    • Montias, J.M. (2002) Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
    • Nash, S. (2007) ‘No Equal in Any Land’: André Beauneveu – Artist to the Courts of France and Flanders, London, Paul Holberton Publishing.
    • Nesbit, M. (1992) Atget’s Seven Albums, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Nesbit, M. (2000) Their Common Sense, London, Black Dog.
    • North, M. (1997) Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • North, M. and Ormrod, D. (1998) Art Markets in Europe, 1400–1800, Aldershot, Ashgate.
    • Nuttall, G. (2012) Lucchese Patronage and Purveying during the Regime of Paolo Guinigi, 1400–1430: Dino Rapondi, Lorenzo Trenta and Paolo Guinigi, unpublished PhD Thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London.
    • O’Brian, J. (ed.) (1986–95) Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, 4 vols, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.
    • Paviot, J. (1990) ‘La vie de Jan van Eyck selon les documents écrits’, Revue des archéologues et historiens d’art de Louvain, vol. 23, pp. 83–93.
    • Pears, I. (1988) The Discovery of Painting: The Growth of Interest in the Arts in England 1680–1768, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Plon, E. (1887) Les Maîtres italiens au service de la maison d’Autriche: Leone Leoni sculpteur de Charles-Quint et Pompeo Leoni, sculpteur de Philippe II, , Paris, Librairie Plon.
    • Pollock, G. (1988) Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and the Histories of Art, London and New York, Routledge.
    • Pomian, K. (1990) Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500–1800, Cambridge, Polity Press.
    • Posner, D. (1993) ‘Concerning the “mechanical” parts of painting and the artistic culture of seventeenth-century France’, Art Bulletin, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 583–98.
    • Porter, D. (2010) The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • Potts, A. (2000) The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Prendergast, C. (1992) Paris and the Nineteenth Century, Oxford, Blackwell.
    • Prior, N. (2002) Museums and Modernity : Art Galleries and the Making of Modern Culture, Oxford, Berg.
    • Richardson C.M., Woods, K.W. and Franklin, M.W. (eds) (2007) Renaissance Art Reconsidered: An Anthology of Primary Sources, Oxford, Blackwell.
    • Rosenberg, H. (1970 [1940]) ‘The fall of Paris’ in The Tradition of the New, London, Paladin, pp. 185–94.
    • Roy, A. and Gordon, D. (2001) ‘The Battle of San Romano’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, vol. 22, pp. 4–17.
    • Sandler, I. (1970) The Triumph of American Painting, Westport, CT, Praeger.
    • Schapiro, M. (1977) ‘On the aesthetic attitude in Romanesque art’ in Romanesque Art: Selected Papers, London, Chatto & Windus, pp. 1–27.
    • Schapiro, M. (1978 [1937]) ‘Nature of abstract art’ in Modern Art: 19th and 20th Centuries. Selected Papers, New York, George Braziller, pp. 185–211.
    • Scott, K. (1995) The Rococo Interior: Decoration and Social Spaces in Early Eighteenth-Century Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.
    • Sheehan, J.J. (2000) Museums in the German Art World from the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Sheriff, M. (1990) Fragonard: Art and Eroticism, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
    • Shiner, L. (2001) The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
    • Simmel, G. (1997 [1903]) ‘The metropolis and mental life’ in Frisby, D.P. and Featherstone, M. (eds) Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings, New York, Sage, pp. 174–85. Extract reprinted in Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds) Art and Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University, pp. 267–9.
    • Snodin, M. (ed.) (1984) Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth’s England, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).
    • Snodin, M. and Llewellyn, N. (eds) (2009) Baroque, 1620–1800: Style in the Age of Magnificence, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).
    • Stechow, W. (1989 [1966]) Northern Renaissance Art 1400–1600: Sources and Documents, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press.
    • Suger, Abbot (1979) On the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis and its Art Treasures (eds E. Panofsky and G. Panofsky-Soergel), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
    • Tomlinson, J.A. (1994) Francisco Goya y Lucientes, 1746–1828, London, Phaidon.
    • Trotsky, L. (1962 [1928/1906]) The Permanent Revolution; Results and Prospects, London, New Park.
    • Vasari, G. (1996) [1568] Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 2 vols (trans. G. du C. de Vere; ed. D. Ekserdijian), London, Everyman.
    • Warnke, M. (1993) The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist (trans. D. McLintock), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (first published in German in 1985).
    • Wolff, J. (1985) ‘The invisible flaneuse: women and the literature of modernity’, Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 37–46.
    • Wölfflin, H. (1950) Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art, New York, Dover.
    • Wolters, W. (1967) ‘Ein Hauptwerk der neiderländischen Skulptur in Venedig’, Mitteillung des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. 13, nos 1–2, pp. 185–9.
    • Wolters, W. (1976) La scultura Veneziana gotica 1300–1460, 2 vols, Venice, Alfieri.
    • Was this article helpful?