Milton W. Brown (1911–1998)

This is a massive, heavily illustrated work containing 736 small, but good-quality black-and-white illustrations and 93 large color plates. The text contains references to the relevant illustrations. At that, so thorough is Brown's review of American art that many pieces are not illustrated. Brown focuses, especially initially, on arts deriving from Great Britain, but he also, from the beginning, includes separate sections on works in areas that would later become part of the United States such as New Orleans and the Southwest.

Unless the reader has an extensive knowledge of the specialized jargon of architecture, access to architectural glossaries or dictionaries should be helpful. The writing is always lucid, and while necessarily containing lots of specialized terms, never descends into academese.

I have learned a great deal from this book, indeed, there is more here than I can absorb. Brown lists large numbers of architects and artists, not merely the most famous during the period. There is an extensive bibliography, as well as a detailed index. The book is so large that I found it most comfortable to read by propping it in my lap with pillows.

There is a later title American Art, which Brown editted with Theresa C. Brakely, published jointly by Prentice-Hall and Abrams. I wonder if this perhaps combines much of this text with the addition of the twentieth century by Brakely.

One thing both bemused and amused me: the subjective criticism of some of the work. Mostly, Brown goes very lightly on this, fortunately enough. In a history like this, I think that the discussion of criticism should generally be related to the artists' contemporary and present reputations. Given the way that artists' reputations rise, fall and rise again (like Caravaggio), I find subjective criticism somewhat ridiculous, especially if the critic voices it in the manner of infallible pronouncements. James Thomas Flexner, in his America's Old Masters, 1980 edition, remarks " They should know that the only constant is change: The position any generation occupies will be soon deserted. Yet there is no lack of presumably rational and educated human being who feel that the movement of taste has come to a halt in their own times and specifically in themselves." Or, as the Romans more succinctly put it, taste cannot be argued. Brown himself defends older architecture: " The buildings they designed do not look like twentieth century International Style architecture, but that should not blind us to the fact that they were often successful attempts to solve basic problems of site, function, materials, and cost."

So I am a trifle taken aback when Brown, in a rare moment of vehemence declares that the State House in Boston has: "an inexplicable pedimented section above, capped by an even less defensible dome." I rather like the building, and in any case, am at a loss as to how and why pediments and domes must be explained and defended, particularly in the case of buildings based on Greco-Roman architecture. He says himself that the building is revered b modern Bostonians, he doesn't say that the people at the time were unhappy, so if the features keeps the rain out, what is there to complain about?

I consider this to be a very successful book and would recommend it to anyone wanting more than the most basic text about American art history.… (més)