I was going to say as much. I wasted a little bit of time reading a New Yorker article that praised the show while hating the ideas behind it. That alone is all one needs to know. See the first 5 minutes here.
I had enrolled in the Art History Survey course with the preconceived notion that it would be memorizing artist's names, dates and the titles of paintings. I ultimately came to the conclusion that when taught properly and passionately, Art History is perhaps the most comprehensive of all the liberal arts.
If one wants to truly understand media, particularly if one is going to go the restoration/preservation route, one must understand a little chemistry. If one is going to understand the qualities and characteristics of even the most basic pigments, one is signing up for a class in animals, vegetables and minerals. If one studies architecture, there must be a basic understanding of engineering and geometry. No art is produced in a vacuum, so to research a piece and understand the subject matter as fully as possible one needs to examine history, mythology, theology, literature, aesthetics, semiotics, philosophy etc.
Sadly, like much of academia, many art history departments are infested by those who wish to push a leftist agenda. If one wants a tremendous introduction to western art with an unapologetic view of the accomplishments of old, dead white men, go to YouTube and watch Kenneth Clark's Civilisation series the BBC aired in 1969. Art history as it should be taught.
I was going to say as much. I wasted a little bit of time reading a New Yorker article that praised the show while hating the ideas behind it. That alone is all one needs to know. See the first 5 minutes here.
pingy
I took an Art History class in college, and you are correct. We learned about Western culture and history from prehistoric times on. I loved that class.