Art in Theory: 1900-1990. An Anthology of Changing Ideas.

In 1968 Herschel B. Chipp published Theories of Modern Art, an anthology that soon became the standard sourcebook for the history of Modernism in art. To some extent, Harrison and Wood have produced "Chipp II," and in the process have brought the story of Modernism up to date, not merely by appending a post-Modernist tail to the original, but also by significantly increasing the number and variety of pre-1968 reflections on Modernism.

Anyone who teaches the theory or history of art will welcome Art in Theory, which certainly fills a long-standing gap in the market. The contents are grouped under eight main headings, such as "The Legacy of Symbolism," "The Individual and the Social," and "Ideas of the Postmodern," which synopsize what the editors take to be the state of the discipline. The summary of contents is a global picture of the conceptual net developed collaboratively by the editors during the course of conversations about criticism. These conversations did not necessarily begin with the inception of the book but have a long history stretching back to the days of Conceptual art, and are strongly linked to the reflections on Modernism and its legacy published since the late '70s by the Art & Language group. Distributive categories such as "Realism as Figuration" followed by "Realism as Critique" have their greatest resonance when considered in this context.

Paul Wood has remarked that the experience of Conceptual art fueled the desire to produce this book as much as the development of the social history of art. Both seemed to require an attempt to sort out the relationship between art and theory in the 20th century. Whereas Chipp is biased in the direction of statements by artists, Harrison and Wood attempt to present a discourse out of which art has emerged or been made during this period. The anthology is less likely to provide readers with objects from which art history is read than with contexts in which art history is, or can be seen to have been, embedded. These contexts are not necessarily those that a conventional art-historical narrative would present for scrutiny; yet the authors justify their choices by pointing out that these issues seem to have been of repeated concern to artists themselves.

The history narrated by this survey of the theory of Modern art is not necessarily the kind one would learn by studying a succession of international conflicts. Basic questions about what kind of art history we might be learning gain some urgency now that Modernism itself may be looked at retrospectively. Some questions include: What kind of periodization is necessary to capture adequately a sense of the flux of ideas in this time? What boundaries can be changed or theories rethought? What happens when you get to the end of it? How do you form categories? What counts as art? What is it that we are trying to form a theory of? What is art "in theory"? Or, does art only exists as and in practice, with theory being something post hoc?

These are not merely questions of method. Much more is at stake than simply figuring out how to short-list art theory's greatest hits. As Lisa Tickner points out, we have to read between the lines to recognize when and how the political formalist discourse of the first 70 years and more of the 20th century is actually about masculinity. Where are the women prior to the 1970s? Is the art of the book's title really only "Modern art"? Has the Modernist monopoly on esthetics value been adequately challenged through this choice of texts? As the art historian Andrew Hemingway has remarked, the kind of cultural politics that is the central concern of post-Modern theory is largely ignored in this anthology. Public discourse is still a masculinized and Western space; Tickner suggests, and I agree, that mastering that space is only part of the story. What isn't said, heard, or recorded, or is actively repressed, is obviously not part of the story that Harrison and Wood construct for the art of the 20th century. Undoubtedly, everyone will have their own list of additions. Personally, I would have preferred the selections under the heading "Institutions and Objections: Political Aspects" to have been less skewed in favor of a discourse centered almost exclusively in New York and dominated (three out of nine selections) by the Art & Language group.

The various subsections, which effectively function as a map of the issues and discursive boundaries of Modern art, may not ultimately stand up to scrutiny as an authoritative historical account. Of course, the editors will counter that their book was not intended as such; and they would be correct in that response. Yet the danger is that this book will be misconstrued as a different sort of tool than it actually is. It might help to reiterate the obvious: Art in Theory is not a textbook of art history, rather it is a panoramic and highly welcome resource for the making of art history. While one such anthology is hardly enough, it would still rank as my first choice to take to that proverbial desert island where we can all read in peace.

Michael Corris is a senior lecturer in art at Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, England.