Well there might be a better one, but this is orders of magnitude better than anything else I have read, including Gombrich. The great thing about it is that it attempts to relate the form and content of the art to the worldview of the artists and the society of the time that the art was produced. In support of its arguments it gives lots of extended passages from contemporary writers as well as many, many quotations from the artists themselves. The philosophical and theological connections are well explained.
What it doesn't do is attempt to re-interpret things as seen through an atheist/materialist worldview, (which assumes that any worldview based upon faith is founded in error and assumes that it cannot be a true motivation for the artist does). This is what nearly every other art book does. For example, much of Western art history is linked to Catholic beliefs. Honour and Fleming do not question the truth of Catholic beliefs, as nearly every art book I have come across does, but seeks to explain how, given these beliefs, their art might be as it is. So they explain clearly and accurately what those beliefs are then relate what we see to them. I find their analysis very convincing. They have the same approach to art of non-Christian cultures as well.
The only section that I find weak is that not written by Honour and Fleming, on the art of the 20th century. The writers seem are not able to articulate the worldview behind it in the same clear way.