Civilisations

I had huge hope for this series. I did not even read IMDB reviews before giving it a try on Netflix. As episode by episode i gave chances my hope were increasingly lost until I felt forced to write a review here. Civilization is not just visual art. Civilization is mostly human development over time based on different factors. Technology forms a backbone here. Agriculture was the first steps towards creating modern civilization because it forced us hunter gatherers to settle down. Harnessing sun, Wind, water became other factors. Art too is an important parameter but where are other sources of art like music or folks stories or mythical creatures? Given the sheer presence of science and technology here I would give only one chapter to art when it comes to civilization. There are simply so many things that could have taken especially the water and the importance it plays in civilization. This series did came pretty close when it talked about Yangtze river in one episode but did not go down further. This series was mostly obsessed with European visual arts. There was a whole episode on dome. My question during that time was where is pagoda? Pagoda was to east as dome was to west. But it was not even mentioned. Utter disappointment.

I've often imagined I'd like the chance of offering up my personal version of history on television; what a history of art? Art is not so simply to reduce to a straightforward narrative, so this is a bold project for co-presenters Simon Schama, Mary Beard and David Olusoga. And it's very heartening to see that the BBC hasn't tried to dumb down their commentary. In other BBC programmes I've seen Beard idiotically reciting Caesar's speaches in modern day Rome, and Schama presenting a fairly convetional wisdom; but here we get their true intellectual insights, and if in places the series is pretentious it's also hard to watch without genuinely learning something. 'Civilisations' has been contrasted to Kenneth Clark's famous series with almost the same title from 60 years previously, but without the latter's Euro-centric bias: to it's credit, though, it never feels to be taking cheap pot-shots at Europe, but rather puts Europe's acheivements (and failures) quite properly in their global context. This is the sort of programme that almost no-one but the BBC could make, and that even the BBC barely makes any more. In the age of YouTube, watch it while you can.

I've never "gotten" art, but this series changed my life. I feel like I understand it now, and it's so beautiful. The series explains how humans have expressed themselves through art, across different cultures and times.

Thank you for the amazing work.

While visually I enjoyed this series, the hosts have very strong personal opinions, that often are exaggerated or unfair. They are pushing their own agenda too far. I especially found myself, in the episodes hosted by David Olusoga, having to mute the sound and just enjoy the art itself. His negativity, prejudices, obvious hate of the Western people's, and strong personal opinions repulsed me. He's somewhat unprofessional in fact!

I am a lifelong fan of Kenneth Clark's original series (and its companion programs such as "The Ascent of Man" and "The Age of Uncertainty") but I think that the three presenters here really outdid themselves.

Let's be honest, Clark's view of the world is interesting and his classicism is compelling, but he was also proudly and famously a fairly conservative westerner at the end of the day. His view shouldn't be removed from TV channels, sure, but it's great to have an updated look at cultures from around the world, and taking into account another 50 years of scholarship since Clark wrote his piece (50!).

Another reviewer here - the only one thus far as I write this - lamented that both this and the original were only about art, not civilisation, and I feel I must defend. First of all, the original series was commissioned as a "personal view", not a wide-ranging study in the manner of Attenborough. But also both Clark in his first episode, and Simon Schama in this first episode, explain very clearly that they believe art is an access point into the mind of a culture. Schama states that art is where the essential nature of a particular culture expresses itself, where we can find a window into the people. And Clark of course quotes the great Ruskin: "Great Nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art." (Ruskin goes on to clarify that, while we must read all three of those books, only the art can actually be trusted as time goes on.)

Is it perfect? Well, of course not. 9 episodes can never encompass everything humanity has to offer. But isn't that the beauty of having decades of documentaries available to us? No single Attenborough documentary covers everything, but we have access to all of them. So too with the many works on civilisation and art, of which Clark is one, and now the impressive viewpoints of Schama, Mary Beard, and David Olusoga are another.