Review

General Books

Purchasers of this book who have every reason to believe it will cover important topics in European nineteenth century art are left with a volume that is much wider in chronology and much more limited geographically. The author promises a reference work which will survey "the major art movements, works of art (notably in painting and sculpture), art themes, people and events." Such a goal is overly ambitious for a volume of this size, and the author compounds his problem by defining the nineteenth century as 1789 to 1914. Strieter, therefore, quickly adds a limitation. Because Paris was so central to the nineteenth century, he advises us that he will be concentrating on the French art world. Rather than focusing the book's effort, this limitation is a disappointment. And while expanding the chronological limits of the nineteenth century makes great political sense, in the history of art these additional years were so filled with momentous change that the purposes of this book are confused even further. Would readers of such a misleadingly named volume really expect to be able to consult it for topics like Cubism or Neoclassicism? Would they be satisfied by the scanty and poorly referenced entries?	1
The only way a small dictionary can be truly useful is by a judicious selection of limited and important topics but the principle of selection here is maddeningly arbitrary. What possible reason could there be that John Flaxman and George Cruikshank receive separate entries but John Constable and J. M. Turner do not? There are similar puzzles even within the area of French concentration. There is an entry for Jacques Louis David but none for either Delacroix or Ingres--although here is an entry for Ingres' Odalisque with Slave. Renoir's 1870 Woman of Algiers has an entry, as does the artist, whereas Delacroix's 1834 Woman of Algiers goes unmentioned. The entries for specific works are particularly troubling and highlight the misguided nature of this project. It is one thing when the entry is for a pivotal work like Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon and quite another when the entry is for "Gendarmes. Etching, 1888, by James Ensor" when there is no entry for the artist. Would anyone ever consider searching a book like this for Henri-Edmond Cross' 1903 etching Satire on Church and Military? And who would remember that the subject of the famous portrait by an un-referenced Thomas Lawrence commonly known as Pinkie was Sarah Barrett-Moulton? The painting can only be found under the letter S. Surely at this level of specialization, the researcher would not be resorting to a little volume like this. There is no entry for Eva Gonzalès but there are a few sentences about her career under the entry for her portrait by Manet. In light of all of the annoying omissions in this book, women are well represented although women who were artists in their own right seem to be as frequently mentioned as models. There are other lapses. Mary Cassatt's entry only cross-references us to one of Degas' paintings where she is described as "strongly influenced by him" and given little attention. Even when there are separate topical entries for items, their length is mystifying. The entry for Goya takes up an entire page, while the entry for the Ecole des Beaux-Arts is less than a fourth of that length.	2
It seems that Professor Strieter deemed it important to create what amounts to an expanded index of the texts listed in his bibliography. He apparently included the topics that had been useful or interesting to him. It is doubtful that they will serve the purposes of another researcher. The irony here is that computer technology – which must have been very hand for alphabetizing – makes this kind of publication both possible and obsolete. Anyone who has used the Grove Dictionary of Art or some of the well-constructed Web-sites understands that this kind of highly limited and idiosyncratic reference book is no longer necessary. It is a shame that Professor Strieter spent such a great deal of time and effort on a book of such limited value. I admired his gift for summarizing and simplifying complicated material. Had he only written to a higher purpose.	3
St. Cloud State University   Nancy Weston

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.