I appreciated this books perspective on different approaches and categories of art criticism. Elkins is good at thinking about and describing possible reasons for 'the crisis' in art criticism. And don't assume that because this book is short it lacks depth, it is very thoughtprovoking. My own criticism of Elkin's perspective is his almost righteous stand for the need for deep historical knowledge of art to provide insigthful criticism. Towards the end he states, I don't think tongue in cheek, 'each writer, no matter what their place and purpose, should have an endless bibliography, and know every issue and claim'. While I think he is saying this to stretch his point, I could feel in the background of the whole book his own bias towards a strong art history foundation, which happens to be his own area of expertise. While there is value in this, I think it detracts from the rest of us being able to have deep responses to art based on our own experiences and reactions and to provide thoughtful criticism based on our responses.