How to Read a Modern Painting: Lessons from the Modern Masters

Some years ago I read Patrick De Rynck's _How to Read a Painting: Lessons from the Old Masters_. I found the volume informative on the techniques, symbols, tropes, genres, and so on used by artists over the centuries. It has a format of two-page spreads, each dominated by a largish reproduction of a single painting and text about the painting and the artist, generally with one or two smaller reproductions of other paintings somehow related to the main painting, or, occasionally, details of the main painting. I came away from it feeling that I was more able to enjoy the old masters' paintings generally.This volume, subtitled "Lessons from the Modern Masters," unsurprisingly follows the same format. Alas, I did not find it as fascinating.Part of it is the inchoate nature of modern painting. There are, I think, more movements in a given decade than there were in a century of the Renaissance and prior, each with its manifesto rejecting much of what has gone before and its radical new techniques. Some of these movements I rather like. (Mainly Impressionism and Surrealism, with a fond spot for Dada and Pop art.) Most I don't, even after reading Thompson's volume.But the burgeoning of movements and techniques makes it hard to tell a coherent story about modern painting, especially when you are limited to a format of two-page spreads (admittedly broken twice in this volume to go into more detail about something particularly important and special in the author's eye).Thompson often manages to make me more sympathetic to what an artist/movement is trying to accomplish, and some of it is accomplished with consummate skill and, well, artistry.But some of them give "My three-year-old could draw that" a bad name.I mean: I can see covering a canvas evenly with black paint to make a point. But having done it once, doing a whole series of them, identical except perhaps for the size, is just gilding a turd. Likewise, whole series of paintings each containing one stripe, against a contrasting or complementary background, down the length or height of the canvas - oh, what design; what artistry; what BS!Then there is (not named as such in this book but plenty of examples) primitivism, in which millenia of developed technique in figurative drawing are deliberately thrown away in favor of, well, something a three year old or other person uneducated in painting might do. I won't say "could do," as these paintings are clearly designed rather than rapidly thrown together, some of them with great skill and care. But to see someone who is clearly capable of more, doing something less, makes me crazy.I donno; perhaps that's the reaction they want.More complex are the works of people like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. They get accused of being frauds, but they aren't; they are pursuing their own muses. I happen to believe that their muses have been taking bad drugs.But most of the works included I respect without liking. Picasso heads the list; he clearly knows exactly what he's doing and why, and he does it damn well, but it is, to me, cold and affectless (with the odd exception, notably "Guernica"). Then there are the opticalists like Frank Stella, Bridget Riley,and so on: work I even like, but wouldn't want to look at more than twice.In the end, I'm glad I read this, and will keep it for occasional reference, but I still prefer figuration (not "realism") to abstraction. (Similarly in sculpture; love Rodin, hate things made of girders welded together in some strange Lovecraftian geometry.)

Illustrations in the book are of very good quality. Painters mentioned in the book are quite comprehensive, from prominent figures like Picasso and Monet to less known one like Berthe Morisot.However, from the title of the book, I expected the book to focus on authors, rather than paintings; for example, I expected some comments of recurrent patterns or techniques occurring in works of a particular artist. That could help reading other paintings of this author. This book doesn't put emphasis on it. Instead, it go through some famous paintings in a chronological order. And that makes me feel like it lacks some coherence.I still enjoy the book very much. However, I can only give it 4 out of 5 stars.

This is not a "How to" book: It doesn't delineate steps for how to carry out a process or endeavor nor a methodology/process for doing so. This is collection of professionally prepared study (i.e., crib) sheets organized under common art history subject headings and bound in book format. It also misleads with its sub-title, "...Lessons from the modern masters," which should more aptly be "selections from the available works of some modern masters likely to appear in an introduction to art history course." Having said this, one may cull from the various entries the author's approach to interpreting modern paintings.Who should buy it: Art history students for whom it's an assigned text, or who need to cram and memorize information on many paintings. Otherwise, there are better options.I think Mary Acton's books are better for this purpose.

Haven't read it yet, but will soon. It presents a series of paintings and instructs the reader in interpreting the art of modern paintings.

I'd checked this useful book out of the library several times and decided it was time to own it for the useful material it presents to my artist's viewpoint and to my ability to occasionally present talks on art subjects.

Great comprehensive and picture filled book! I think it's a great choice for a textbook (which it is in my case). The book came on time and it is in great condition. It's thick and well-bound.

Great book to have in any artists library. Lot's of great information. Something you go back to again and again. Very good book.

ok

Superb book. A must for any art lover