What do you think?
Rate this book
賮賱爻賮踿 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮賳丕禺鬲 乇賵卮鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲爻丕蹖賱 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 鬲賮讴乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘賴 乇卮鬲賴 鬲丨乇蹖乇 丿乇丌賲丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賵 倬跇賵賴卮蹖 丕爻鬲 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丌賳趩賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 毓賱賲蹖 賴賳乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丕賳噩丕賲 丿賴丿貙 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕賲讴丕賳丕鬲 賵 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 丌賳. 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丨丕賵蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賮賱爻賮蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 丕卮丕乇賴鈥屫й� 亘賴 賮賱爻賮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 胤乇丨 賳馗乇蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 噩賴丕賳貙 蹖丕 賲賳胤賯 賮乇丌蹖賳丿 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賵 丨鬲蹖 倬蹖卮鈥屭堐屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賳丿丕乇丿貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 讴賵卮卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕爻鬲賳亘丕胤 賮乇丌蹖賳丿 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 賵丕賱丕 蹖丕 诏賳噩丕賳丿賳 賴賲賴 乇禺丿丕丿賴丕蹖 诏匕卮鬲賴 賵 丌蹖賳丿賴 丿乇 蹖讴 賯丕賱亘 賵丕丨丿 亘賴 毓賲賱 賳賲蹖鈥屫③屫�. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗貙 亘賴 丕氐賵賱 乇丕賴賳賲丕蹖 賲賳 丿乇 賳诏丕乇卮 讴鬲丕亘 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賴賳乇 (郾酃鄣郾) 賵賮丕丿丕乇 丕爻鬲. 賱蹖讴賳貙 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賵 卮讴賱 鬲卮乇蹖丨 賲賵囟賵毓貙 丕夭 倬丕蹖賴 亘丕 讴鬲丕亘 蹖丕丿 卮丿賴 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 禺賵丕賴丿 亘賵丿. 丿乇 丌賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 乇賵卮 鬲賵氐蹖賮蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賲 賵 賴丿賮賲 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 倬蹖卮鈥屬举嗀ж簇€屬囏й� 賳馗乇蹖 賵 賯賵丕賳蹖賳蹖 乇丕 讴賴 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 讴卮賮 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з� 亘賴鈥屫焚堌� 讴丕賲賱 鬲丕亘毓 鬲賵氐蹖賮 賵 鬲賮爻蹖乇 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 诏乇丿丕賳賲. 丿乇 丌賳噩丕 賵馗蹖賮賴 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賳 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 讴乇丿賳 丕夭 賲賯賵賱賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 賲亘賳丕蹖 丕丿丕賲賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇 亘賵丿賳丿 亘賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 讴鬲丕亘 賵丕诏匕丕乇 卮丿賴 亘賵丿. 毓賲丿丕賸 丕夭 賳賵卮鬲賳 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇蹖 亘賴 賲賳馗賵乇 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賴丿賮鈥屬囏� 賵 乇賵卮 讴丕乇賲 禺賵丿丿丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賲. 丿乇 蹖讴 賲毓賳丕貙 讴鬲丕亘 讴賳賵賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 噩丕蹖 丌賳 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇 賳丕賳賵卮鬲賴 乇丕 亘诏蹖乇丿. 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 倬蹖卮鈥屬举嗀ж簇€屬囏й� 賮賱爻賮蹖 賲賮賴賵賲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 賲賳貙 乇賵卮賳 賵 讴丕賲賱 賲胤乇丨 卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 丕夭 賲丿丕乇讴 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賮賯胤 亘乇丕蹖 賳賲丕蹖丕賳丿賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 亘賳蹖丕丿蹖 丕夭 賳賵毓 乇賵卮賲賳丿 爻賵丿 噩爻鬲賴鈥屫з�. 丕蹖賳 亘丕乇貙 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 丿乇 倬乇鬲賵 鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屬囏й� 卮禺氐蹖鈥屫ж� 丿乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 賴賳乇 賵 亘丕 蹖丕乇蹖 诏乇賮鬲賳 丕夭 賳诏乇卮 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳貙 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏� 乇丕 賲丨讴 亘夭賳丿. 賴乇 噩丕 毓丿賲 鬲賵丕賮賯蹖 丕丨爻丕爻 讴賳丿貙 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖丕 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丿乇 禺胤丕 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴貙 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖鈥屭┵� 賵丕賯毓蹖丕鬲 賲卮禺氐 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 乇丕 讴賴 賲賵囟賵毓 讴丕乇卮 賴爻鬲賳丿 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賳丿丕禺鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 賵 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖鈥屭┵� 賳鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 丕夭 毓賴丿賴 鬲噩乇蹖丿 賱丕夭賲 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇 倬跇賵賴卮 乇賵卮賲賳丿 亘乇丌蹖丿.
- GenresArtPhilosophyArt History
522 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1958
17 people are currently reading
434 people want to read
About the author
Arnold Hauser
155听books69听followersArnold Hauser was born in Temesvar (now Timisoara, Romania), to a family of assimilated Jews. He studied history of art and literature at the universities of Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. In Paris his teacher was Henri Bergson who influenced him deeply. To earn extra income he reported on art, literature and cultural events for the Temesv谩ri H铆rlap (Temesv谩r News). For a period he was a teacher at a Budapest Gymnasium.
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher Gy枚rgy Luk谩cs. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers B茅la Bal谩zs, and the musicians B茅la Bart贸k and Zolt谩n Kod谩ly. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Luk谩cs in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher Gy枚rgy Luk谩cs. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers B茅la Bal谩zs, and the musicians B茅la Bart贸k and Zolt谩n Kod谩ly. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Luk谩cs in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 4, 2022
A leading Marxist of his time, Hungarian art historian Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) reflected deeply and wrote extensively on how changes in society and social institutions and organizations influence art. The Philosophy of Art History is a collection of six detailed essays where the author addresses such topics as psychoanalysis and art, the concept of art history, folk art and popular art, and the sociology of art. As a way of providing a taste of what a reader will discover in these pages, I will include quotes along with my comments on this last topic, the sociology of art, specifically outlined in Hauser鈥檚 first essay, Introduction: The Scope and Limitations of a Sociology of Art.
鈥淎 work of art is a challenge; we do not explain it, we adjust ourselves to it.鈥�
The author makes an excellent point, one fundamental requirement: we resist the urge on first viewing to 鈥渆xplain鈥� the work of art in terms of our preconceived notions or categories; rather, we accept the challenge the work of art offers and permit ourselves to become vulnerable in our encounter and let the art speak to us and possibly even move us.
鈥淚n interpreting a work of art, we draw upon our own aims and endeavors, inform it with a meaning that has its origin in our own ways of life and thought. In a word, any art that really affects us becomes to that extent modern art.鈥�
For example, if we read Crime and Punishment, we color the novel -- plot, characters, events, language-- with our own specific memories and experiences; in a way, Dostoyevsky鈥檚 work becomes our Crime and Punishment, and thus, a 21st century novel! Same applies to a cubist painting of Picasso or a Symphony of Mozart. Personally, I find this way of looking at art a particularly creative approach.
鈥淲e are now living in the day of the sociological interpretation of cultural achievements. This day will not last forever, and it will not have the last word.鈥�
Very humble statement from a man who spent his entire professional life studying and writing on the sociological context of art and culture. And what the author says is true: thousands of articles, reviews and books have been written evaluating artists and writers in the context of her or his society, culture, epoch; true today as it was true back in 1958 when Arnold Hauser penned these words. However, like anything else, if it takes 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years, our current methods of evaluating art will change.
鈥淏ut the exponents of the theory 鈥渁rt for art鈥檚 sake鈥� maintain that any reference to actualities beyond the work of art must irretrievably destroy its aesthetic illusion. That may be correct, and yet this aesthetic illusion is not all, to produce it is not the exclusive or the most important aim of the artistic endeavor.鈥�
Let鈥檚 take an obvious example: a war memorial where the intention of the organization funding the work is to commemorate and memorialize those who participated in the war. Certainly, the war memorial might have an aesthetic appeal, it might even be beautiful (I personally find the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to be of high aesthetic quality), but this is not the war memorial鈥檚 primary reason for being. However, pertaining to claims of 鈥渁rt for art鈥檚 sake," I think it wise to evaluate such claims one work at a time.
鈥淚f we do not know or even want to know the aims that the artist was pursuing through his work 鈥� his aim to inform, to convince, to influence people 鈥� then we do not get much farther in understanding his art than the ignorant spectator who judges a football game simply by the beauty of the players鈥� movement.鈥�
Such a statement can be tricky. Let鈥檚 take the World Cup 鈥� when a team fails to score and loses, that country鈥檚 players, coaches and fans are disappointed, no matter how beautiful the players' movements. But, if we look at a Cirque du Soleil performance, the dynamics are not at all the same - acrobats and dancers perform successfully when all their movements are beautiful; there are no ends beyond the beauty of perfectly executed movement. The point being, in some art and performance, we need not concern ourselves with the artist鈥檚 aim beyond the art or performance itself.
鈥淓very honest attempt to discover the truth and depict things faithfully is a struggle against one鈥檚 own subjectivity and partiality, one鈥檚 individual and class interests; one can seek to become aware of these as a source of error, while realizing that they can never be finally excluded.鈥�
Again, this can be tricky. For example: Karl Ove Knausgaard leans heavily on his own subjective experience, matter of fact, his experience is the juice of his writing 鈥� rather than attempting to exclude his feelings and individuality, he mines his feelings and individuality as the very subject of his novels.
鈥淚t is no more than an idle dream to suppose that social justice and artistic worth in any way coincide, that one can draw any conclusion with regard to the aesthetic success or failure of a work of art from the social conditions under which it has been produced.鈥�
How true! A free, open society does not necessarily produce all great or even good artists and writers; a oppressive, unfree 鈥渂ad鈥� society does not necessarily produce all bad artists and writers. Case in point: One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
November 10, 2017
The philosophy of Art History, Arnold Hauser
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 爻倬鬲丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱 1984 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賮賱爻賮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丌乇賳賵賱丿 賴丕賵夭乇貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿鬲賯蹖 賮乇丕賲乇夭蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳诏丕賴貙 1363貨 丿乇 522 氐貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 1388貨 卮丕亘讴: 9789643511685貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇貨 賮賱爻賮賴 賴賳乇貨 賴賳乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 卮賳丕爻蹖貨 賴賳乇 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 - 賯乇賳 20 賲
丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 爻倬鬲丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱 1984 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賮賱爻賮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇 貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丌乇賳賵賱丿 賴丕賵夭乇貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿鬲賯蹖 賮乇丕賲乇夭蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳诏丕賴貙 1363貨 丿乇 522 氐貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 1388貨 卮丕亘讴: 9789643511685貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賳乇貨 賮賱爻賮賴 賴賳乇貨 賴賳乇 賵 乇賵丕賳 卮賳丕爻蹖貨 賴賳乇 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 - 賯乇賳 20 賲
丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
July 23, 2021
诏匕卮鬲賴貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲毓賳丕 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 亘丕 夭賲丕賳 丨丕賱貙 賲乇亘賵胤 亘卮賴.
賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賲毓賳蹖 讴乇丿賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 亘丕蹖丿 丕賵賳 乇賵 亘丕夭賳賵蹖爻蹖 讴乇丿貙 丕孬乇 賴賳乇蹖 賴賲 亘丕蹖丿 丿賵亘丕乇賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇 亘卮賴 鬲丕 賲毓賳蹖 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 亘丕 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屫ж� 乇賵 亘卮賳丕爻蹖賲.
賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賲毓賳蹖 讴乇丿賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 亘丕蹖丿 丕賵賳 乇賵 亘丕夭賳賵蹖爻蹖 讴乇丿貙 丕孬乇 賴賳乇蹖 賴賲 亘丕蹖丿 丿賵亘丕乇賴 鬲賮爻蹖乇 亘卮賴 鬲丕 賲毓賳蹖 賲鬲賳丕爻亘 亘丕 夭賲丕賳賴鈥屫ж� 乇賵 亘卮賳丕爻蹖賲.
January 4, 2020
kinda spicy not gonna lie
July 30, 2024
亘毓囟 丕賱賰鬲亘 鬲爻鬲丨賯 賲賳丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇貙 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 賯乇丕亍鬲賴丕 賵乇賰賳賴丕 毓賱賶 乇賮 丕賱賲賰鬲亘丞 亘毓丿 匕賱賰貙 賵賱賰賳 鬲爻鬲丨賯 賲賳丕 丕賱亘丨孬 貙賵廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 賮賯乇丕鬲 賲賳賴丕 貙賵丕賱丕賲鬲賳丕賳 亘丕賱胤亘毓貙 賵賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮賳 賲賳 囟賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丞.
賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賲丕 丕爻鬲賱賮鬲賳賷 賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 "賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺" 鬲賱賰 丕賱噩賲賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賲賱 賵乇丕亍賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇貙 賮賴賵 賲賳賴噩 賱丕 賷賯賵賲 賮賯胤 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀乇賷禺 賱賱兀丨丿丕孬 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賲賳賴噩 毓賱賲賷 賷丨賱賱 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賱賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲購丿乇爻貙 賵賴賳丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賮賳貙 賱匕丕 賷乇亘胤 賴賳丕 賴丕賵夭乇 丕賱賮賳 亘丕賱兀賳爻丕賯 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲賳 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賱丿賷賳賷丞...貙 賰賱 匕賱賰 賱賴 丿賵乇 兀氐賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賮賳貙 賵噩丕亍 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷亘乇賴賳 賴丕賵夭乇 毓賱賶 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 鬲賱賰貙 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷毓鬲亘乇 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱丌禺乇 " 丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺".
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾夭賷乇 噩丿丕賸 亘丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵亘丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲貙 賮賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲鬲賮乇賯丞 賲賳 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 賵賲丨丕囟乇丕鬲 兀賱賯丕賴丕 賴丕賵夭乇 孬賲 噩丕亍 賱賷毓賷丿 鬲噩賲賷毓賴賲 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙賮賴賵 賱賲 賷賯丿賲 鬲兀乇賷禺丕賸 賲賲賱丕賸 賱賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賮賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘賱貙 賵賱賰賳賴 賷鬲毓賲賯 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 匕賱賰貙 賱賱兀爻賮 賱噩賴賱賷 亘丕賱賮賳 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 兀賳 兀鬲匕賵賯 亘毓囟 賲賳 賮賯乇丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賱賰賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 睾亘丕乇 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賵賱毓賱 賲賳 兀賰孬乇 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲毓丞 賴賵 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷 賱賱賮賳丕賳貙 賵賷噩賷亘 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 賲爻鬲毓賷賳丕賸 亘賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賮乇賵賷丿 賮賷 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賮乇賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賳 丕賱賮賵賱賰賱賵乇賷 賵丕賱賮賳 丕賱卮毓亘賷貙 賵丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱賮賳 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賵鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲爻乇丨 賵毓賯丿賴 賱賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 丕賱乇丕卅毓丞 丕賱賲賵噩夭丞 亘賷賳 賲爻乇丨 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵賲爻乇丨 卮賰爻亘賷乇貙 孬賲 丨丿賷孬賴 毓賳 丕賱賲卮丕賴丿 賵鬲賯亘賱賴 賱賱鬲賯賳賷丕鬲 丕賱賱丕賲賳胤賯賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 丕賱賲爻乇丨 賵丕賱爻賷賳賲丕貙 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 鬲賯亘賱 丕賱亘毓丿 丕賱乇丕亘毓.
賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賲丕 丕爻鬲賱賮鬲賳賷 賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 "賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺" 鬲賱賰 丕賱噩賲賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賲賱 賵乇丕亍賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇貙 賮賴賵 賲賳賴噩 賱丕 賷賯賵賲 賮賯胤 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀乇賷禺 賱賱兀丨丿丕孬 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賲賳賴噩 毓賱賲賷 賷丨賱賱 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷丞 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賱賱馗丕賴乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲購丿乇爻貙 賵賴賳丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賮賳貙 賱匕丕 賷乇亘胤 賴賳丕 賴丕賵夭乇 丕賱賮賳 亘丕賱兀賳爻丕賯 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲賳 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賱丿賷賳賷丞...貙 賰賱 匕賱賰 賱賴 丿賵乇 兀氐賷賱 賮賷 丕賱賮賳貙 賵噩丕亍 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷亘乇賴賳 賴丕賵夭乇 毓賱賶 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 鬲賱賰貙 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷毓鬲亘乇 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱丌禺乇 " 丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺".
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾夭賷乇 噩丿丕賸 亘丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵亘丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲貙 賮賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲鬲賮乇賯丞 賲賳 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 賵賲丨丕囟乇丕鬲 兀賱賯丕賴丕 賴丕賵夭乇 孬賲 噩丕亍 賱賷毓賷丿 鬲噩賲賷毓賴賲 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙賮賴賵 賱賲 賷賯丿賲 鬲兀乇賷禺丕賸 賲賲賱丕賸 賱賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賮賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘賱貙 賵賱賰賳賴 賷鬲毓賲賯 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 匕賱賰貙 賱賱兀爻賮 賱噩賴賱賷 亘丕賱賮賳 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 兀賳 兀鬲匕賵賯 亘毓囟 賲賳 賮賯乇丕鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賱賰賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 睾亘丕乇 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賵賱毓賱 賲賳 兀賰孬乇 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲毓丞 賴賵 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷 賱賱賮賳丕賳貙 賵賷噩賷亘 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 賲爻鬲毓賷賳丕賸 亘賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賮乇賵賷丿 賮賷 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賮乇賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賳 丕賱賮賵賱賰賱賵乇賷 賵丕賱賮賳 丕賱卮毓亘賷貙 賵丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱賮賳 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賵鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賲爻乇丨 賵毓賯丿賴 賱賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 丕賱乇丕卅毓丞 丕賱賲賵噩夭丞 亘賷賳 賲爻乇丨 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵賲爻乇丨 卮賰爻亘賷乇貙 孬賲 丨丿賷孬賴 毓賳 丕賱賲卮丕賴丿 賵鬲賯亘賱賴 賱賱鬲賯賳賷丕鬲 丕賱賱丕賲賳胤賯賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲爻鬲禺丿賲賴丕 丕賱賲爻乇丨 賵丕賱爻賷賳賲丕貙 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 毓賱賶 鬲賯亘賱 丕賱亘毓丿 丕賱乇丕亘毓.
May 17, 2024
Let's say 4.8. Although Hegel is back in fashion, one may be forgiven for getting a little weary with the long middle section on "Art History Without Names" and the general (I think correct, if belabored) attack on teleologies of Art Geist. Perhaps Hauser is himself the one who makes the arguments there seem obvious in retrospect. I liked the rest of the book almost as much as I liked Hauser's sublime book on "Mannerism" (which I believe follows this volume). I never really understood how anyone could feel anything other than distain for "Historical Materialism" until reading these. Really interesting closing sections on Folk and Popular Art.
I no longer think Hauser is >perfect< (he has the kind of chip on his shoulder for Romanticism which, in my opinion, both reveals and ignores in new ways aspects of that Moment and its Descendants), but his books have permanently enlarged the way that I think about art in history and there are tantalizing insights on even the (rare) ploddingest of pages.
I no longer think Hauser is >perfect< (he has the kind of chip on his shoulder for Romanticism which, in my opinion, both reveals and ignores in new ways aspects of that Moment and its Descendants), but his books have permanently enlarged the way that I think about art in history and there are tantalizing insights on even the (rare) ploddingest of pages.
Want to read
March 22, 2013arnold hauser
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.