What Are You Looking At?

The book's approach feels both broad and accessible, but I wonder how the author decided which artworks and movements to highlight. Was there a particular narrative or theme that guided this structure?

Some sections felt more vivid and engaging, while others were a bit dense. I’m curious which parts resonated most with different readers and why.

Art history can be so layered and complex—what choices were made to make this overview both digestible and meaningful without oversimplifying?