Many Are Culled But Few Are Chosen: Janson's <i>History of Art</i>, Its Reception, Emulators, Legacy, and Current Demise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Janson's History of Art: The Western Tradition, by Penelope J.E. Davies et al., 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education 2007). Pp. xxxi, 1153, bibl., index. Cloth: ISBN 0-131-93455-4, US$115.40. In 1962, H.N. Abrams published History of Art by H.W. and D.J. Janson, which soon became, and remained for more than twenty years, the art history survey in the United States. In 1986, several years after H.W. Janson's death, the third edition of the survey appeared with his name on the title page as well as that of his art historian son, Anthony, as reviser and editor; Anthony would be associated with the survey through the sixth revised edition of 2004. Several years later, the so-called seventh edition appeared, which is titled and is being marketed as Janson's History of Art: The Western Tradition, though no Janson name appears on the title page. Rather, six new art historians are listed as authors. According to Dr Jeffrey Weidman, the publication of this so-called seventh edition is an event to be mourned, not celebrated. In order to substantiate his claim, Dr Weidman reviews in detail the lineage of English-language art history surveys in America, and the Jansons’ text therein; discusses in detail the various reviews of the Jansons’ and other survey texts that have appeared since 1976, as well as related recent print and online review essays; and thoroughly reviews this seventh edition. Even with its many faults and shortcomings, this recent edition is a good book. But the publishers’ decision to align it with and market it as the most recent edition of Janson not only does a disservice to the Jansons but undercuts and devalues the considerable work of the six authors whose book this really is. The publisher should give them credit for it, rather than obfuscating the reality of the book's contents by targeting a market that has been built up since the early 1960s. Dr Weidman's essay will be of immeasurable value to scholars, publishers, and historians of the book – among others – interested in the detailed chronicling of the long publication history of a renowned text.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".