The Anger of Compassion

Art Updates: Elephant Dung, Monstrous Projections, and Air Guitar

Gus Van Horn recently accused me, I think, of being a culture blogger, so...well, so as not to embarrass the guy, and 'cause I really do covet the title, I'll pull my share of the load and report on a development or two...

The first one I discovered is from this New York Times story, in which we discover that some pretty prominent stuff has been wiped from the most recent edition of Janson's History of Art:

In some ways, art history is like an episode of "The Sopranos." A relatively small number of artists are welcomed into the family of the famous, their works immortalized in museums and on postcard racks — in other words, they are made. But hit men, otherwise known as critics and scholars, are lurking around every corner, waiting to whack even the most sterling reputation.

Almost no one is safe. Not even, as it turns out, Whistler's mother.

This month, the publisher Pearson Prentice Hall is introducing the first thoroughly revised version of "Janson's History of Art," a doorstopper first published in 1962 that has been a classroom hit ever since Horst Woldemar Janson wrote it while working at New York University. For a generation of baby boomers, it defined what was what and who was who in art, from Angelico (Fra) to Zurbarán (Francisco de).

But in recent years it has lost its perch as the best-selling art survey and has been criticized for becoming a scholarly chestnut. So its publisher recruited six scholars from around the country and told them to rewrite as much as they wanted, to cast a critical eye on every reproduction, chapter heading and sacred cow.

First of all, Janson's is a brand name in the Art History biz, as is Fowler in the English grammar and usage game. In other words, Fowler's dead, and Janson's dead too, but publishers, while conscious of the need to remain contemporary and relevant, want to keep those names on books. So. Really, you know the rest: while Alexandra can do a more capable evaluation in detail, you already know the basic bits: Whistler's mum is gone, Audubon isn't in there (and Grant Wood still isn't), but women have been added and, of course, paintings "resting on" elephant dung.

It's art, you philistines. Gotta have elephant dung.

The second entry I have for you is from Van Horn himself, who refers us to a seeming development of trompe loeil known as anamorphosis. I've never heard of anamorphosis, but it's definitely worth a look, so go look. Strange.

Finally, take note of Peter Cresswell's comments on why, notwithstanding your fondness for performing air guitar to AC/DC, you might enjoy checking out Duke Ellington, classical music, and even (gasp!) opera. Three chords is fine, writes Mr. Cresswell:

There’s nothing inherently more rational about a violin than a guitar – as Eric Clapton says, ‘It’s in the Way That You Use It!' It just so happens that over the last three centuries or three most violins have been asked to do more than have most guitars. That’s just the way it is.

Yes, he tells us: the violin has been asked to do more than the guitar. Something more than rage, pain, anger, and hurt. Go read what he says about it. And then do some listening, and really, you'll thank Cresswell, you'll thank me, and you'll thank yourself for having done so. More than that: you'll thank those composers who have asked the violin, the piano, and the human voice to do, and to say, more, more, more...

Posted by Craig Ceely at March 7, 2006 11:29 PM