His book, with its passionate prose about art, spurred a revolution in the teaching of art history. JansonвЂ™s patriarchal model of art history, in which style and innovation descend from one great artist to the next, became the model for all textbooks, along with his arrangement of artists in chronological, encyclopedia-style entries. Asia was relegated to a chapter uncomfortably titled вЂњPostscript: The meeting of East and West.вЂќ

Among those who didnвЂ™t matter in the first edition of his textbook were women and photographers. There were artists who mattered, he argued, and those who didnвЂ™t. It was Janson (1913вЂ“82) who, more than any other art historian, pioneered the вЂњin and outвЂќ celebrity model of art history. GombrichвЂ™s classic The Story of Art, first published in 1950 by Phaidon and now in its 16th edition GardnerвЂ™s Art Through the Ages, first published by Harcourt Brace in 1926 and still going strong for Wadsworth Publishing as the recent recipient of two awards for textbook excellence and Marilyn StokstadвЂ™s Art History, first published by Prentice Hall in 1995, which has become popular as the вЂњanti-Janson,вЂќ with its inclusion of female artists and its colorful magazine-style design. But a number of rivals that pre- and postdate Janson are battling for a larger share of the lucrative market. Abrams, and by far the most widely used art-history text during the baby boomersвЂ™ college years, has long been the best seller in America. JansonвЂ™s book, first published in 1962 by Prentice Hall and Harry N. The report faults other major textbooks for вЂњterse and dryвЂќ writing, вЂњpaltry coverage of non-WesternвЂќ themes, and вЂњturning art history into an arid affair.вЂќ The вЂњavailable array of art history surveys leaves us wanting,вЂќ the report concludes. In a preliminary salvo-a sweeping review of a handful of leading textbooks titled вЂњQuo Vadis, Hagia Sophia?вЂќ-former CAA president Larry Silver, of the University of Pennsylvania, and David Levine, of Southern Connecticut State University, argue that JansonвЂ™s вЂњtasteful page layoutsвЂ¦ exude a Martha Stewart elitismвЂќ and that the book lacks social and historical references. The project, which will be announced this month at the groupвЂ™s conference in Boston, is already creating a buzz and is likely to raise eyebrows-and hackles. In a break with tradition, some will be reviewed by a student as well as by a scholar. To consider these problems, the College Art Association (CAA) is about to begin an assessment of as many as 40 or more textbooks. Is вЂњcontextual analysisвЂќ the new вЂњdeconstructivismвЂќ? they ask. Critics say that the revisions endorse a вЂњwhatвЂ™s in/whatвЂ™s outвЂќ culture of art history, anoint undeserving contemporary stars, overwhelm students, and endorse what may turn out to be fads in art scholarship. While some professors applaud the changes, others argue that they are merely cosmetic and donвЂ™t address the difficulties of teaching Art History 101 today.

And forget art for artвЂ™s sake: the editors of the twelfth edition of GardnerвЂ™s Art Through the Ages, a 1,179-page tome that came out last year, said that they sought to include the intended purpose of every work of art featured, the physical environment for which it was made, its historical context, and even the patron who commissioned it. Recent revisions of major textbooks as well as those still in the works give greater historical significance to a long list of subjects from Islamic sculpture to pre-Columbian art to photography to video. Publishers and editors, stung by criticism that they have lost touch with their young readership and driven by market forces that may have little to do with fresh artistic scholarship, are literally rewriting art history-more often and more aggressively than ever before. College art-history textbooks are undergoing an extreme makeover.

H w janson history of art