Pop Art: A Critical History (Documents of Twentieth-Century Art)

I'm reading lot these days on Art of the 1960s and found this book to have an excellent introduction and the selection was also superbly chosen. Highly recommended over many other competing volumes. (I have read most of them.)

I actually don't know if this book is any good or not as the print was so small it was difficult to read and I gave up after a few paragraphs. So if you are older or don't have great vision, I'd skip this. There also are very few pictures which are frustrating in an art book.

To put it briefly, I concur with the review from the Library Journal which the editor of the book quotes below. This is the best anthology of critical writing on Pop, and it largely supersedes previous ones such as Carol Mahsun's Pop Art: The Critical Dialogue. My only quibble is with the assertion in the editorial introduction that the work of Jim Dine and Tom Wesselmann is somehow "less incisive" (read "less impressive") than that of the "four-headed goliath named Lichtenstein-Oldenburg-Rosenquist-Warhol". It isn't, and neither is it less Pop than that of the goliath.