Zivilisation

Watching the series in China, it makes me all the more proud of my heritage. The last comment is a good one; let Clark introduce himself to you, just as one reads a Herodotus or Suetonius- to be in the presence of a knowledgeable and engaging friend. having visited many of the places shown, it's also a marked benefit that the series was filmed in 1969, when travel was truly the domain of those seeking enlightenment before our days of package tours. And how clear and lucid are his discussions of culture and history! Often I found myself anticipating his next sentence from my own classes I teach, but am left feeling pedantic and plebeian by comparison. Although the BBC continues to be a source of wonderment through its historical live-action recreation series such as Auschwitz, Pompeii and the Attenboroughs, this is truly of its time when there was no need for gimmicks or embellishment. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com

You will enjoy this series if what you expect is a history and appreciation of western art and architecture. But if you are hoping for more of an insight into the meaning of civilisation and how it has developed in the western world, you will be disappointed. Some of his views were ridiculous to me. Such as the "triumph of the catholic renaissance". I am no expert, but I found his views to be too personal to be described as "history".

At first I thought the title "Civilisation" was the choice of the producers. But he does actually seem to believe that "civilisation" is all about producing great art and architecture. And that is why this series is so annoying.

I am about half-way through the series. It may get better, but I doubt it will.

There have been many fine video lecture series by prominent cultural figures, from Joseph Campbell to Robert Hughes, but for me, the finest is still the first, Kenneth Clark's landmark, "Civilization, A Personal View". The sub-title is important, for Clark's survey of western civilization through its art and architecture is certainly opinionated. And this gives the series a wonderful intimacy that previous televised surveys never approached.

Not only is there a wealth of information and insight in this beautiful production, but there is Kenneth Clark himself. A scholar of culture and art, admirer of Ruskin and student of Bernard Berenson, he was director of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and the National Galley in London, as well as pioneering arts commentator for radio and television in the UK. Kenneth, Lord Clark, raised to the peerage for his achievements, is perhaps the greatest impresario of art of the 20th century.

"Civilization, a Personal View" has been criticized by some art critics as being a bit "facile". I disagree. Clark's argumentation is always reasoned, never arbitrary. It certainly is facile for pop commentators to repeat the old tourist-pleasing but phony assertion that Michelangelo designed and built St. Peter's dome. It is Clark who points out that St. Peter's dome is the work of Giacomo della Porta, not Michelangelo. Is it facile for Clark to confess that when he was young he scorned Frans Hals out of snobbery, but later, "as I grew older," began to appreciate Hals's "convivial" figures? Facile indeed. Everything Clark says carries weight.

Aside from questions about Clark's personal views - he ends Civilization at the beginning of the modern era, not because he ran out of film but because he didn't care for modernism - it cannot be denied that he delivers them in such a lucid, congenial and engaging manner, that only the pedantic and churlish could fail to be delighted with a dapper, eloquent, beautifully spoken gentleman's tour through western history. Where else do pronunciations like caPITalism and usages such as "lie of the land" sound so wonderful than from the lips of this erudite Scotsman?

"And please allow me two minute's digression on the subject of tulips." I love it!

Clark's series is by far the best televised course in Western Civilization ever created. I doubt if it will ever be surpassed. There are two men I dearly miss having met before they died - Joseph Campbell and Kenneth Clark. Upon meeting Clark in "Civilization, a Personal View," I think you'll understand why.

Yes opiniated, yes patrician, but also an enlightening, exceptional documentary series. Nothing else I've seen on the BBC can match it (though I enjoyed The Ascent of Man very much). A profoundly intelligent look at Western 'Art' History covering music, painting, architecture, sculpture, writing (poetry, drama, prose, philosophy) and celebrating the astonishing achievements of individuals. "There they are, you can't dismiss them". Quite.

The upside of paternalism, if you like. They couldn't make Civilisation (1969) today.

I know, I know. They tried. 'Civilisations' (cos there's been more than one, you know). Rightly chewed-up, even by the BBC's own arts critic, as a project without any sense of vision or purpose, the worthless and unnecessary sequel is destined for the scrapheap. The original, commissioned by that hero of BBC TV, Sir David Attenborough, is an immortal product of the Beeb at her most ambitious. The most extraordinary buildings and works of engineering, the most beautiful interiors and works of decorative art, the greatest achievements in music and sculpture, painting, bronze casting, and more besides; and all to show off the new medium of colour television.

And if Attenborough is a hero then so is the series writer-presenter, Kenneth Clark. The director of the National Gallery, an art historian of immense experience and erudition, and actually one of the most experienced culture broadcasters on the still developing medium of televisual broadcasting. Civilisation is a 13-part lecture series, of a kind, in which Clark endeavours to answer one question: what is civilisation? He prefers to answer it through the medium of art, his specialty, because it is less doubtful than the words of a smarmy politician or a propagandist historian. His journey takes him around Europe and across the Atlantic to the USA. He, and the recording team, are showing things to the viewer that they might never have known existed, much less had the chance to see in person.

Clark was an immense figure in the art world. He speaks with a confidence born of deep consideration of art and literature, over decades of study and writing. Write so you learn to think, talk so you learn to speak. Those are the words of Prof. Jordan Peterson. Alternatively, immerse yourself in the eloquence of great spirits such as Clark (and Peterson, naturally). For Clark's presentation is remarkable for its eloquence, as well as one or two unusual pronunciations (ca-PIT-alism, not CAP-italism; i-ron, not i-yun, as we tend to say 'iron' today). He also provides a model of how to be on camera without stealing focus from the art and architecture which is intended to be the central attraction.

The decades have passed and there have been many series on TV about art and history from different periods. None can match, few have ever attempted, the grand sweep of Clark's vision (vision is the apt word), nor his eloquent use of language, engagement without ego, or at times contained emotion. Most tv historians subsequent to Clark merely allow the producers to stroke their egos, so they toss their hair, make worthless shots looking out at vistas or sunsets, and talk as simplistically as possible so as not to threaten the dull minds with knowledge or inspiration. Or we get vapid travelogues, replete with segments on local cuisine and clowning. Clark's series is always replete with something others rarely communicate: passion. A passionate engagement with things he considered holy.

I watch whole episodes, or just bits of them, again and again, and over the decades I've come to love all the episodes, rather than having favourites. The more depressed and disgusted I become, soaking my attention in the tabloid vulgarity and sheer stupidity that teems in Socialmedia Land, the more urgently I need Civilisation, the series and what it stands for.

You're not educated if you have not seen this TV series.