Scan barcode
Reviews
The Art of Rivalry: Four Friendships, Betrayals, and Breakthroughs in Modern Art by Sebastian Smee
rhays40's review against another edition
3.0
I 'm not sure the content is linked adequately to the title.
perseyfriend's review against another edition
Another reviewer said this book was "anecdotal to the point of gossipy," and I agree. But I think Smee is sympathetic to the artists covered, and especially sensitive when talking about the insecurity between artists in sometimes-friendly competition. A shortcoming of this book is how women are described -- either muses or wives (except the Steins, I guess). Which is disappointing to me especially since so much of the juicy info he has on Picasso and Matisse for example seems to come from letters between women or the words of their diaries. Still glad I read this book.
abookolive's review against another edition
3.0
ksoanes's review against another edition
3.0
It is an interesting premise but I found myself stopping to look up every picture mentioned to make more sense of the discussion about particular paintings,style, and techniques. It would have been enormously helpful to have had all the works of art in the book. Occasionally the text got bogged down with too many facts and not enough story telling.
sydkne3's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
3.5
opal360's review against another edition
3.0
The Art of Rivalry by art critic Sebastian Smee is a biography with a difference. Looking at four pairs of artists from the modern era, it explores how they influenced one other. There is a single essay devoted to each pair, presented in alphabetical rather than chronological order: Freud and Bacon; Manet and Degas; Matisse and Picasso; and Pollock and de Kooning.
I liked this concept because it seemed to offer a new take on these giants of the art world. The decision to limit your focus to the impact of one particular friendship (or rivalry) allows you to go deep without dragging on too long. For instance, Degas outlived Manet by over 30 years, but those decades fall outside the scope of the narrative. The friendship between Manet and Degas was most active between 1867 and 1869, allowing you to narrow the scope even further, and investigate those years most closely.
Despite this structure, I didn’t find the writing as focused as I expected. The essay on Manet and Degas felt too drawn out, with such a host of supporting actors that the central thread was lost. The essay on Pollock and de Kooning concentrated heavily on the early parts of their lives, the years when they hadn’t even met.
I preferred the essays on the Freud-Bacon and Matisse-Picasso relationships. In each case, the narrative felt more streamlined and the story more compelling. The outsize personality of Bacon dominates the former. In the latter, it is the classic tale of artists competing for patronage that draws you in: Matisse and Picasso were both favoured by the wealthy Stein households (Gertrude and Leo on the one hand, and Sarah and Michael on the other), but their standing waxed and waned.
Given the initial premise, I wasn’t too surprised that Smee dwells less on the art and more on the social lives of the artists - many of whom were lecherous and dissolute. There is some careful analysis of individual pictures, which I enjoyed, but it is not the main driver here, and the colour plates are ungenerous. The reader is expected to know the works or to google them.
I thought Smee could have done more to highlight the resonances between the four stories, perhaps by adding a conclusion as well as an introduction. I found myself noting the same dynamics cropping up again and again, but in the main you are left to make the connections for yourself.
Review first posted at http://asianartbrief.com
I liked this concept because it seemed to offer a new take on these giants of the art world. The decision to limit your focus to the impact of one particular friendship (or rivalry) allows you to go deep without dragging on too long. For instance, Degas outlived Manet by over 30 years, but those decades fall outside the scope of the narrative. The friendship between Manet and Degas was most active between 1867 and 1869, allowing you to narrow the scope even further, and investigate those years most closely.
Despite this structure, I didn’t find the writing as focused as I expected. The essay on Manet and Degas felt too drawn out, with such a host of supporting actors that the central thread was lost. The essay on Pollock and de Kooning concentrated heavily on the early parts of their lives, the years when they hadn’t even met.
I preferred the essays on the Freud-Bacon and Matisse-Picasso relationships. In each case, the narrative felt more streamlined and the story more compelling. The outsize personality of Bacon dominates the former. In the latter, it is the classic tale of artists competing for patronage that draws you in: Matisse and Picasso were both favoured by the wealthy Stein households (Gertrude and Leo on the one hand, and Sarah and Michael on the other), but their standing waxed and waned.
Given the initial premise, I wasn’t too surprised that Smee dwells less on the art and more on the social lives of the artists - many of whom were lecherous and dissolute. There is some careful analysis of individual pictures, which I enjoyed, but it is not the main driver here, and the colour plates are ungenerous. The reader is expected to know the works or to google them.
I thought Smee could have done more to highlight the resonances between the four stories, perhaps by adding a conclusion as well as an introduction. I found myself noting the same dynamics cropping up again and again, but in the main you are left to make the connections for yourself.
Review first posted at http://asianartbrief.com
bookwormsandbookshelves's review against another edition
3.0
Overall - 3.5
Freud and Bacon - 3
Manet and Degas - 2
Picasso and Matisse - 2.5
De Kooning and Pollock - 4
Freud and Bacon - 3
Manet and Degas - 2
Picasso and Matisse - 2.5
De Kooning and Pollock - 4
doriastories's review against another edition
5.0
Wonderfully well-written, Smee knocks it out of the park with his revealing and engaging descriptions of eight icons of Art. It's surprising how utterly enthralling - and valuable - old gossip can be, revealing the vulnerable underbelly of men we think of only as "Genius". But this is no mere tabloid rehashing of turgid romances gone sour and boozy bashes. Smee goes deeper, informed as he is with a broad and penetrating understanding of Art history and Art criticism. No words are wasted, there are no gratuitous anecdotes parlayed here to satisfy prurient curiosity. Methodically yet lyrically, he weaves together the strands of the lives and development of men bruised and beaten not only by each other, but by their own artistic development. Each page delivers unexpected revelations, as we walk the pathways through mens' private souls and inner torments. And while nothing is ever pedantically propounded, much is made clear through the author's wise reading not just of the canvases made by Immortal Geniuses, but the hearts and minds of broken men.
jaclyn_youngblood's review against another edition
2.0
I didn't like this very much, but I didn't actively dislike it. Learned a bunch, like reading about art, found Smee's writing bothersome, etc. Probably wouldn't recommend unless someone has a particular interest in one of the eight artists profiled.