Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
This is an archived site closed to new users and posts
If you'd like to find out more read the FAQ

Ta Ta Gombrich

Not Here Still

18:03 / 07.11.01

Well, he finally snuffed it.

Ernst Gombrich was my inroduction to a lot of art. Mainly because I never used to give a damn about art other than 'well, I like that/ don't like that.'

Then, when I went off to university, I decided to take History of Art as a 'filler' module uin my literature course to see if I was missing anything.

And I was introduced to Gombrich. Wrote a massive tome on art which sort of led me in, and while I'm not Nicholas Serota yet, I'm not so much of a philistine either.

Gombrich archive

So It's cheers to Ernst for that. What do you think of him?

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:39 / 08.11.01

It's a curious thing - I didn;t know he had died. "Art and Illusion" was...useful. I don't really have much else to say.

Kit-Cat Club

08:07 / 09.11.01

Gombrich is all very well as far as he goes (which is quite a long way), but the History of Art is looking a little hidebound these days, I think.

Vitamin-C

23:15 / 09.11.01

his 'story of art' is an amazing introduction to art history. like having your favourite grandad sit there and read it to you.

i haven't thought about him for years. but now he's gone i feel kinda sad.

Kit-Cat Club

11:43 / 15.11.01

I don't really - he was fairly venerable, after all. The question is, is there anyone comparable to replace him? I scarcely think Andrew Graham Dixon and Matthew Collings are of the same stature.

The Return Of Rothkoid

16:35 / 15.11.01

Robert Hughes, perhaps? Although he does tend to cover modern stuff rather than anything earlier - unless there's a TV show in it for him, I suppose.

I'm willing to bet he's more of a deadshit, too...

Frantastic

12:24 / 19.11.01

well John Berger's still about.

To be honest - i though Gombrich died years ago... his work is an nice (rather dated) introduction to 'art'. I prefer Rosalind Krauss, TJ Clark, Rosenblum, and Barthes on art meself... but maybe they dont do that overview thing inthe same way.

Maybe we dont need a Gombrich type of overview anymore. Cant we just look at the images without a patriarchal figure telling us about it? Doesn't 'The Story of Art' come out a certain Victorian way of looking at the world?