000			00459nam a2200145 a 4500
999			_c5858 _d5858
001			13371
003			0000000000
005			20180205132858.0
008			000113s1975 000 0 eng d
035			_a(AEA)2E894588C99311D39F3400104B2873D0
040			_aAEA-IRC _cAEA-IRC
050			_aD 429 _b.R543 1975
100	1		_aRoberts, Martin. _920343
245	1	2	_aA Portrait of Europe 1900-1973 : _bThe New Barbarism? / _cMartin Roberts.
260			_bOxford University Press, _cc1975.
300			_a360 p. ; _c25 cm.
520			_aReviewed by Jeanne Brody* Even if oneconcedes that Martin Roberts’ elementary text offers a serious perspectiveof the major events and ideologicalcurrents that have determined the past 73 years, I find that it still leaves much to be desired. The first major fault stems from the author’s attempts at objectivity. That illusory goal is, at best, often vague and dangerously misleading. Roberts’ description of the European attitude toward the nations of Africa, for example, seems to condone theconcept of the whiteman’s racial superiority. On the other hand, his description of the Russian Revolution of 1917, which states that Lenin was charismatic but uninformed (‘Many people, including some Bolsheviks,decided that Lenin had been out of Russia so long, that he did not really understand the situation’ p. 86),could hardly be considered objective;nor could his coupling of Nazism and Communism in his commentary on the cinema (pp. 245-246) and on the Women’s Movement (p. 251). The text is uneven, with the author swinging from no viewpoint at all to a pretence of objectivity. A presentation of history that is scholarly and that clearly indicates an author’s bias would be a welcome change. The second major fault is the author’s effort to sound casually fashionable. The result is patronizing or foolish. To speak of Hitler’sideas as ‘lunatic racial theories’ (p. 139)or to call him an ‘eccentric Austrian drop-out whose political ideas were halfbaked or vicious’(p. 137)minimizesthe effectiveuse he made of them to mobilize a nation, and it would be inaccurate and contemptuous were one to call all those who followed Hitler, ‘lunatics’. With respect to the chapter on art, Roberts tries to cover a selection of major artists and artistic currents in Europe during thiscentury. Although this isdoneadequately, thecriteria for his selection are not provided. My principal complaint against the chapter is its mediocrity. It describes the past 70 years of art as merely a seriesof actions and reactions, but touches on nothing fundamental to explain the artistic reality of the 20th century. Were the post-impressionists simply reacting to the Impressionists , or was the emergence of a subjective element not important? Roberts makes only a passing reference to Freud with respect to the surrealists. He makes no attempt to consider the impact of psychoanalysis on the artists’ increasing selfconsciousness during this period. No account is taken of the important part World War I played in the origins of Dada and Surrealism. Is it not more important to explore why and how a movement came intobeing than merely to cite names and works? It is a time in which ‘the borders between painting, sculpture, architecture and science became less clear’ (p. 2 3 2 t b u t why? Although Roberts’ book has an excellent collection of photographs and he can be admired for his attempt to deal with the current pressing issuesof Europe (the Common Market, the Cold War, the Women’s Movement, etc.), he provides no coherent conception of what history is all about.
942			_2lcc _cGS
984			_a029479 _blpg