The Many Hands of Janson: A Comparative Essay

Despite the fact that the Janson History of Art title bears the name of its original writer, the franchise behind it has changed hands multiple times, so to the point that it no longer bears the hand of the original author or any of his kin. Therefore one could fairly assume that the voice speaking in the original 1967 introduction of the first edition of Janson is quite different than the many voices speaking in the seventh edition. In some respects, this premise would be true. In others, one might be surprised at the wealth of similarities between the two versions.

The enduring factors of the two introductions appear to rest in their respective themes. Both H.W. Janson himself and the many people behind the Janson name wish to express an understanding and appreciation of varied (and often misunderstood) art forms that even the "layman" can understand. Both versions attempt to communicate the value of artistic integrity and originality, the contemporary context of beauty and aesthetics, the integration of art into daily life and the difference between craft and art. While the newer version of the two introductions uses such examples as Andy Warhol's Gold Marilyn Monroe, and Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q to vindicate these "misunderstood" art forms, Janson uses Picasso's Bull's Head and Edouard Manet's Luncheon on the Grass, as well as other works of art to draw the same conclusions about originality and vision. In either case, proclaim both introductions, it is not the technical skill that determines and artists worth, but his ability to extrapolate something novel, provocative and stimulating (or at the very least, amusing) out of an original source.

The newer "Janson" goes a step further in embracing "true" art by representing art from female artists through time, as well as introducing such mechanical things as the novel photography. One must, however, take into consideration the social and temporal context of the original Janson, and why, in his time, he might not have considered such things as female artists or photography in a legitimate repository of information on art history. On the other hand, the contemporary writers of Janson suggest that there is a divergence away from its predecessor in mentioning these omissions present in the earlier edition, while still retaining much of the original spirit of Janson's critical perspective concerning art and the state of art in our society.

Once again, a clear connection between the two articles can be made, as they both attempt to describe the difference between not only craft and art, but also art and "good" art. Both the older and newer introductions provide a distinction between "low" art and "high" art. In the case of the original Janson article this distinction is much more severe, separating such things as fashion, interior design and otherwise far apart from sculpture and painting as far as high art is concerned. On the other hand, the newer version seems to be more accepting of innovative forms of art, such as the aforementioned photography.

I believe, however, the major difference between the two can be found in their structures. Although the main arguments of the two introductions are basically the same, or at least very similar, certain structural accidentals which flavour both introductions differ. As I mentioned, time and social context has flavoured either article as far as certain considerations as well as existing art forms at the time. But on a basis of form alone, the two introductions are distinctly different in tone and composition. The original work demonstrates a personal and very fervent, almost impatient perspective point of view concerning art in our world that the author seems to be imploring the reader to consider. He uses a few salient examples to draw his conclusions. On the other hand, the newer article contains a much more impersonal, open manner in explaining many of the same premises. The examples provided are much more plentiful, but the tone of the piece is much more academic than personal (having been written by several "experts"), much colder and laid back, and, in a word, more modernized.

I suppose ultimately, the articles are demonstrating the very thing they attempt to convey about the subject of art in their respective texts. The newer article uses the older one as a reference point from which to express an idea, but opts to do it not exactly as its predecessor, but in its own right. Thus, we see an evolution of culture where certain accidentals change but certain underlying precepts remain. However, we must not forget that Janson is now no more than a name, and so perhaps it is arguable that the original sensibility of Janson the man is now lost. Perhaps, due to the corporate, massed-produced nature of the Janson franchise, we can no longer say that the book is the same credible source of art, but just another craft, like the type the original H.W. Janson would so ardently deride.