Reviewer Questionnaire
Janson’s History of Art Seventh Edition
We are in the very early stages of planning an eighth edition of Janson’s History of Art and are asking for your help in determining what changes can be made in order to improve the book. Please read through this set of questions before you begin your review. Please answer the questions as fully as you can. We are grateful for your help.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Course: What text do you use for your two-semester survey of art history? Please describe this course including: (a) the name of the course (b) the length of the course (c) the annual enrollments (c) how adoption decisions are made (criteria, and whether the choice is individual or by committee).
Currently we use “Gardner’s History of Art” for both Western survey courses. These semester-long courses are: Art History 131 (Ancient to Medieval) and 132 (Renaissance to Modern). My teaching responsibilities include at least three sections per semester, and sometimes four. If I teach just 3 sections of the survey, I will also teach an upper-division Italian Renaissance course. Each survey course has an average enrollment of 35 students (max. is 40) Sometimes for one of the sections I teach an Honors course, which has a max, enrollment of 15. In terms of text selection, each teacher here can choose his or her own text. Please see my course Web sites at:( http://www.efn.org/~acd/)
2. Your Current Text:
· Why did you select your current text? How long have you been using it?
I am using the text that everyone else is using just because it is most convenient for everyone to use the some title. I have been using this since I came here in Fall of 2006.
· What is your general experience with this text?
I am relatively pleased with the text, although I find the general tone of the writing to be somewhat juvenile (esp. the section headings). The illustrations are very good—large and of good quality. The one exception is the maps, which have too much detail to project well.
· What is the greatest challenge you face in teaching this course? How could a book (or ancillary teaching material) help you meet this challenge?
· What are the text’s greatest strengths?
· What are the text’s greatest weaknesses?
The greatest challenge involves the large numbers of students enrolled and their motivation for taking the course. When I first started here I had a lot of trouble from some students who quite plainly said that they did not want to have to study. Life got a lot easier after I discovered that some non-humanities department advisors were recommending the Art History survey courses as “easy” and “attendance isn’t really required”—and I contacted two of those departmental advisors and told them, as politely as possible, to knock off the basketweaving expectations. Now I tell students on the first day of class the kind of work that will be expected of them, the attendance policy, and the lack of extra vacations (the students at this school tend to be quite wealthy and take Thanksgiving and Spring vacations to Europe or South America). I also have created, and update each semester, extensive Web sites. See (http://www.efn.org/~acd/) for the Index page for my course, and other, sites.
How could a book or extras help? The students here are in the main very smart and don’t need to be coddled in terms of vocabulary or concepts. However, they, like so many other student populations, have a deficient background in terms of world history and culture, and this is obviously not unique, because every Art History text I have looked at seems to make some effort to address this. Students here mostly enroll in major programs in business, science, math, and other supposedly money-making fields. While there is an Art History B.A, (and an M.A., although it’s wilting with no help from the dept. or the university), most students regard these survey courses as an intrusion on their march to the world of home-and-boat that they think these majors will bring them.
One thing that would be helpful would be to come up with some kind of online quiz format—sort of like a stencil that I could fill in on my own—so that they could take the required quizzes on their own time. This would help to give them some sense of control over and responsibility for their learning experiences. I must say that students typically don’t spend much time reading the text nor in using the extras, including my Web sites, until just before the tests.
One thing the students have liked with the Gardner’s is the image notebook supplied with the new book (as opposed to used copies). They like bringing that to class instead of the text. I think I should mention that I forbid the use of computers in class—I have found that they are disruptive to students around them and anyway the students are often e-mailing their friends or doing their banking rather than taking notes.
Another idea: tools to help students put together their own short film—something like youtube. Or you could assemble a selection from the Web. Maybe something like this: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_Hxs
3. Competition:
What other textbooks have you used or considered using for this course? Please describe your experience with them. How does your current text compare to the competition in terms of: the selection and quality of illustrations, level of writing, and scholarship?
Almost never have I had a real choice in the survey text. I have mostly used the Gardner. I have also used Stokstad’s “Art History” , which I thought was very well written. I should also say that while here I have never heard from the Gardner rep—I hear more from you folks!
GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT Janson’s History of Art
4. Level, Style and Tone: Is the book written at a level of difficulty appropriate for the students who take the course? How would you compare the level to other competitors? Is the style and tone appropriate and distinctive in some way?
From now having read a significant portion of the text (and this is such good extra preparation for the classes I’m teaching this semester!) I would say that our students would have no difficulty with the text. I find so incidents of the sort of near-babytalk that afflicts Gardner.
5. General Content & Organization:
A: Do you agree with the periodization, as reflected in the table of contents? Basically, yes. I like that you have rather downplayed Mannerism, in light of recent re-evaluations of the characterizing of this period.
Are all major topics covered? Is the sequence and organization of topics appropriate? Do any topics receive too much or too little attention?
B: Would your students find the features in the chapters helpful in their learning? Please comment on the various components of the chapters:
Box program:
Materials and Techniques
Informing Art
Primary Sources
The Art Historian’s Lens
Primary Sources at the end of each part (e.g. p.230-233)
Art in Time sequences (e.g. p.647)
Maps
Summary at end of each chapter
C: Are there other features you would recommend we include in the book?
D: Would you assign the Introduction? In any case, please tell us how it can be improved.
6. Chapter-by-Chapter Comments – Note that this is the heart of your review. Please review EACH chapter (even if the material falls outside of your own area of expertise) on the basis of:
· Scholarly accuracy and currency
· Clarity for the student
· Reproduction quality
· Illustration Choice
· Comprehensiveness/appropriateness of coverage. Whenever you are suggesting an addition/expansion, please suggest a deletion/scaling back.
· Finally, if you had to assign a letter grade for the chapter, what would it be?
Chapter 13—Good introduction to the new subject. Good map—will project well and easy for students to read (I have students who vacation in Italy—I’ve had also students in the past who’ve never been out of the county) My basic suggestion for this chapter is that it be slightly shortened and the it be included at the end of Vol. 1 as well as leading off Vol. II. I find it lots easier to get through the first part of the survey and lately I’ve even had some extra time—it would be great to be able to move ahead, particularly because the second part of the survey is so crowded. I’ve been told this survey is often called “The Race to Picasso” and I myself have seldom gotten much beyond Guernica.
More here—nice bit on St Francis, although why use the debatable fresco from Assisi when you have other choices? I would drop the Altarpiece of St. Clare. For both, use either the St. Francis panel in Florence or the one in Pescia. Good explanation on fresco—although I usually wait until Masaccio. You, as so many other texts, have used the wrong view of the Fortitude from Nicola Pisano’s pulpit. Straight on, the figure looks stumpy and ill-proportioned. It was intended to be seen from below, and photos of this do exist. (Bad photo here (http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2007/02/baptistry-pisa-pulpit-by-nicola-pisano.html) at least gives you the idea.) You should also mention that Pisa had an extensive Roman past of which it was always very proud; a collection of ancient sarcophaghi was kept near the Campoosanto, for example. Also, portions of ancient reliefs are incorporated into the marble surface of the Cathedral—not an accident, symbolic of the triumph of Christianity.
In term of Giovanni’s more Frenchified, even Gothic style, I think it is most helpful for students to realize that both the ancient Roman and this style are different approaches to the idea of the contemporaneity of Christ: the first style relates to his historic lifetime, the second to ours. The don’t conflict, and both styles can exist at the same time. Excellent aerial photo of the Duomo and surroundings in Florence. Why not talk about Pisa, Florence, and Siena in terms of their attempts to out-do each other in their cathedral complexes? Why not compare the Florence cathedral with a French one from vol. I? Just a thumbnail and 2 sentences! You need a photo of the F. baptistery to go with the first set of doors. Now,why do we have here Andrea da Pisano but Nicola Pisano and Giovanni Pisano? Each is “X” from Pisa. Actually, Andrea is either Andrea Pisano or Andrea da Pisa. Nice that you pay so much attention to the doors—should help on understanding this important project.
I like that you refer to “Cimabue” and “Giotto.” As you may know, in Gardner Giotto is referred to as Giotto di Bondone, which has led to my getting papers with citations of a Mr. “Di Bodone” as the artist at the Arena Chapel. It is important, if sad, to remember that even if you the teacher find the most hideous mistake in the text, the students will remember that rather than the correct information you gave them in class, Stay away from the Giotto at Assisi controversy, and don’t mention Pietro Cavallini without explaining who he was and illustrating his work.
Siena: “by Duccio and Simone MARTINI”. As Dr. Tansey used to say, “you students should have no trouble remembering that name” assuming a sophistication undeserved of orchard-dwelling students of San Jose State. I never think there is enough Giotto. The Rena Chapel was in fact built on the remains of a Roman arena. It seems likely Giotto designed the chapel. Mention why built. The “children” in the trees are a reference to the story of the short, despised tax collector. The Cathedral of Siena is a fragment of what was planned. DROP the supposed Duccio. It’s controversial, and there are other paintings you could use. Why not include a nice big detail of the Madonna in 13.24? This is much the more important painting by Duccio that the students should know. You could also use his Sta Trinita altarpiece. The Simone Martini Annunciation needs to be bigger so you can study the pattern of his wings and that of the “marble” floor. Gabriel’s greeting to Mary is printed backwards, because it’s only for her. The A. Lorenzetti’s G & B Govt photos need to be re-positioned: GG in the City should be placed above GG in the Country. The Triumph of Death: full is excellent, might I ask for a detail, perhaps of the male and two female riders? It is very difficult to find any good images of this and the concept death right beside us is an important concept for centuries. On the Black Death: a quotation from Boccaccio’s Intro to the Decameron would be appropriate here.
Northern Italy: A good selection, esp. the inclusion of the beautiful manuscript pages. You did forget that Venice is an island, which had rather a lot to do with its protection from invasion (and it’s not like other states didn’t try!). I like the little “Art in Time” boxes—easy for the students to use. (Perhaps you have guessed that one of my ambitions is to do a course on Medieval Italian art) Grade: A-
Chapter 14—Overall, I think this chapter is very successful. Especially like the paired images throughout. Quick suggestion: More Hieronymus Bosch! The Sluter 14. Good the emphasis on the International Gothic. 1 would have a detail of the Virgin so that readers can focus on the style of the IG. I would drop the Boucicaut Master in favor of another calendar page from the Limbourg Bros. (Jan. or Feb.) I would drop 14.6 unless you are also going to include the Caravaggio. I love that you have included the Wilton Diptych—it is one of my favorite works of art and so evocative of the IG style, late medieval Britain and even Shakespeare. I would like to suggest that you include The Visitation by the Master M.S. (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Visitation-1506 Posters_i1348199_.htm) Hungarian, early 16th century as an example of the spread of the IG style. This is also a good place for the discussion on tempera and oil. I would drop 14.10—the Ghent altarpiece is enough, and it is good to see that you have so much space devoted to it already. The treatment of 14.15 is ok, although there is apparently more uncertainty about the identity than is indicated here. The “Arnolfini Portrait” is discussed here will a well-deserved caution, serving to remind us how, no matter how familiar persons of another century may often seem to be to us, there are always elements of their lives that have become unknowable. For Rogier, please consider adding the female portrait from the NGA in Washington—good for male/female compare and contrast with Jan. It’s interesting to have 14.19, but please add one of the painted wooden Pietas—good for popular religion, sculpture style, and taste comparison with MA’s Pieta. Drop 14.20 (for most students, this will look exactly like 14.10). Nice bit of tapestry. Again, more of 14.24: details. I like that you put in a contemporary discussion of his painting. HB was very respected—not a druggy or crackpot.