<<While Hauser is one of my favorites, I have to admit both of the above comments have enough accuracy to damage, yet neither is quite enough to reveal what Hauser contributed. If either of you are interested, you should look at both `The Sociology of Art' and `The Philosophy of Art History' which were published (1958, 1982 posthumously) after the Social History (1951).>>
Chuck, I have not read other works by Hauser (just "Social History..". I brought up this point about Hauser's "Social History of Arty" because in Paglia's essay, while criticizing Foucault, she talks about the influence that the "Social History of Art" had on her in graduate school.
Anyway in THAT particular work, it is apparent that Hauser is extremely knowledgeable of Art History, yet the analysis is rather stereotypically a vulgar sort of black and white orthodox marxist analysis. That said, it is a pretty good (and accessible) survey course in Art History, so I would not agree with Dennis that it is boring. However, my point was that it must have attracted Paglia because of its simplistic analysis.
Anyway, it would not shock me that Hauser wrote other works which incorporated a more nuanced analysis. Though I disagree with his analysis in SHA, as I said, his erudition is unquestionable. Thanks for the recommendations of the other Hauser stuff, I will check them out!
-Thomas
===== "The tradition of all the dead generations
weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living"
-Karl Marx
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/