Patricia Emison, Ph.D. (1985) in the History of Art, Columbia University, is Associate Professor at the University of New Hampshire. She specializes in the history of Italian Renaissance prints and is the author of Low and High Style in Italian Renaissance Art (Garland, 1997).

Review

At a moment when the discipline of art history is in flux, beset by new methodologies and conflicting theories of what matters in a work of art, it is refreshing to find a seasoned scholar stepping back and calmly appraising the strengths and weaknesses of the profession.

Wittily, lightly, endearingly, the author convinces readers that room still exists for passion and generosity in dealing with the universe of wonders that is the world of art. --D. Pincus, Choice<br /><br />This book brings profound issues into new and vivid focus. --Angus Trumble, Yale Center for British Art<br /><br />This wise and thoughtful book would make an excellent text for a methodology course and should be read by all who are interested in the field. Emison's reorientation of art history will seem confrontational to some, but for an old veteran like me, it was a very consoling read. --David Wilkins, Renaissance Quarterly

This book brings profound issues into new and vivid focus. --Angus Trumble, Yale Center for British Art

This wise and thoughtful book would make an excellent text for a methodology course and should be read by all who are interested in the field. Emison's reorientation of art history will seem confrontational to some, but for an old veteran like me, it was a very consoling read. --David Wilkins, Renaissance Quarterly

Product Description

In this provocative book, Patricia Emison invites the reader to consider and reconsider how past thinkers--from Pliny and Alberti to Freud and Fried--have conceptualized the history of Western art. What a book review attempts to be for a book, this extended essay attempts to be for several hundred years worth of books in a field: an indicator of problems with the old attempts and hopes for the new ones. It is a defense of art history for those outside the field who question its reliability or even its importance; it is a critique of art history for those in the field who may have been preoccupied with looking at trees but who might be interested in trying to see the forest.