Heinrich Wölfflin’s book is a critical approach to assessing fine art (primarily the Renaissance and Baroque periods), and critical reading for any art student. Being an artist/author myself, I was impressed by his endeavors to make sense out of what many could not see on their own, especially since this was written in the 1920s. Wölfflin’s unique way of categorizing the progression of art from one period to the next was groundbreaking. That’s because he made clear that we should not view “progress” in the sense that later artists were superior to their predecessors. Rather that each artist viewed and created artistic works within the confines of the knowledge available to them in their own time.Most people are ingrained with the idea that progress is a process of making improvements over time, hence becoming more advanced. That the horse and buggy cart evolved over time to become an automobile is a prime example of progress manifesting a superior vehicle. Yet, in the art world, Heinrich argued, such is not the case.As an example: Wölfflin’s theory would assert that Rubens cannot be deemed superior to Da Vinci just because he lived in a later era. Each had only the knowledge of their respective times available to them. So where Leonardo had strived for linear perfection, and utilizing linear perspective in ways to heighten the dramatic moment, Rubens, on the other hand, had inherited all that the past had to offer him, and instead focused primarily on using paint to create visions of action, or the subtle nuances of fatty flesh for example.Hence, adherence to the hard outline gave way to softly blurring edges in a painterly fashion and creating movement. Each master excelled in their profession, yet according to Wölfflin, we cannot say that Rubens was superior to Da Vinci. Each was a master at what they strived to achieve with the resources available to them, and neither had access to advanced knowledge that did not yet exist. As such, an artist’s goals differ from one generation to the next, and in many cases, even from one ethnic group to another. Therefore, both are great artists for their respective times.And while that concept holds true in most cases, I could easily point out a flaw in Wölfflin’s hypothesis. His strict approach, which although allowing for minor overlaps from one period to the next, overlooked how some artists break free of the constraints of their era, being visionaries that spearhead advances far beyond their time, thus having far greater influence upon their own and future generations. Here again, I will cite Leonardo as a prime example. Leonardo’s “‪Battle of Anghiari” was a mind-boggling masterpiece that shocked the majority of his peers, and, to the world’s loss, never survived. However, it was reproduced by none other than Peter Paul Rubens, who only drew a detailed sketch of one section of this massive fresco.‬Nevertheless, Da Vinci’s battle scene—which was a ferocious and gnarled assemblage of men and horses fighting in the heat of battle—broke all the restrained and orderly rules of High Renaissance art, and proved to be a prophetic glimpse into a distant future. In essence, Da Vinci’s mind had traversed the ages and brought the future back to this own provincial time. Most uncommon. Likewise, Leonardo’s staggering invention of the sfumato technique was another major milestone in art history, as Da Vinci was already softening the edges of his luminous subjects while all his peers were glued to the hard crisp outline. Hence, once again Leonardo profoundly influenced the following Baroque era and all others that followed, which Wölfflin had at least acknowledged.As such, we can indeed say that Leonardo was superior to Rubens for making such innovative and far-reaching advances. Da Vinci was endowed with sublime qualities that only a mere handful of humans throughout history ever possessed. As such, there are ultra savants that break all the rules. Therefore, by Wölfflin overlooking such glorious anomalies, or missing them completely, the integrity of his hypothesis begins to falter.Heinrich sought to eliminate all emotion and concentrate on logic to assess artists and their work, which was a commendable concept. However, he evidently had a deep aversion to making judgments that could elicit even the slightest notion of being called “subjective.” So did Wölfflin view Leonardo’s techniques as subjective? Possibly. Yet, as I pointed out, the criteria used to make my assessments were not based upon mere speculation or personal “subjective” preferences. The facts clearly spoke for themselves. The slight smokey glaze of the Mona Lisa or the twisted battle composition of ‪Anghiari‬ had obviously introduced innovations that no other artist exhibited in Leonardo’s lifetime, yet had clearly influenced future artists. As such, being critical to the subject Wölfflin was treating, and in turn should have been addressed.Yet don’t let my critique mislead you, on the whole, Wölfflin posited sound criteria for analyzing great artworks and pointing out some of the traits and methods their creators had and utilized, which did fall into basic categories, hence adding clarity and a deeper understanding to each artist and time period. Heinrich offers a great deal to contemplate and investigate, and makes astute observations that enhance one’s perceptiveness and appreciation.The two main publishing drawbacks, however, were the black & white reproductions of artwork, and the lack of certain pieces of artwork that Wölfflin discussed, which not every reader will know if not an art professional or enthusiast. I was going to give this a 4 star rating for those flaws, but opted not to. There are far too many good points to penalize this work for those reasons. It would have been nice, however, if this Dover edition updated Wölfflin’s scholarly work with color images and not be just a straightforward black & white reproduction of a dated work. Regardless, this is a must-read for anyone who is serious about gaining a greater insight into art and the mysteries of creation. Highly recommended.