I've read a lot of art history, but I don't think I've ever encountered anything so congested and opaque, or so apparently dismissive of biography or practical context. I'm obviously in a minority; the reviews seemed to have raved. The reproductions are profuse and beautiful, so it's not without virtue, but I was surprised that there were almost no sentences I understood, even after multiple re-readings. Try this, pretty well at random:
Runge stages this transformation within a fiction of artistic origination, that is, the genesis of history painting from nature drawing, only to overturn its temporality and therefore its implicit hierarchy.
I clearly don't understand, never mind appreciate this `model of interpretative art history'. Is landscape art conceptually that difficult? The classicists gave it a lowly placing in the hierarchy of artistic endeavours; nobody thought very much of those gloomy Dutch landscapes until recently. Malcolm Andrews in Landscape and Western Art (Oxford History of Art, 1999) didn't feel the need to make it quite so troubled. We've clearly missed something that Mr Koerner knows, but perhaps what he knows is so darned clever that he can't convey it to a reasonably intelligent reader. He may therefore have thrown out the historical baby with the philosophical bathwater. An odd purple paragraph is the prerogative of a Harvard Arts Professor, but nearly 300 pages of it? Weird.