Power of Art

This is a fake series on several levels. It features Simon Schama, whose credentials as an historian have been long suspect, and who has no credentials at all as an art critic with any aesthetic sensitivity. Instead he has a substantiated record as a propagandist, for modern western establishment and regimes, especially as a war mongering one. As for the content, series has less to do with works of art themselves, but is more concerned with retelling of anecdotes, of very doubtful veracity, about artists, their patrons, and rivals. These anecdotes, some of them entertaining, were obviously selected to prejudice the viewer favorably, or unfavorably, according to views of Schama or his producers. Anecdotes are illustrated with badly acted reenactments. In contrast, artworks themselves are shown only in badly lighted very short cuts. As an example, take episode on Bernini and 'Ecstasy of St Theresa'. It has lots of ad hominem attacks against the sculptor (and his patron popes and cardinals) through unsubstantiated anecdotes, but sculpture (which is a whole chapel in fact) is never shown in full on location. Its relations to other art works at the time or before (word 'baroque' is never used even to discard it), its composition from variety of media and materials, and its methods and techniques of creation, are barely referred to, if at all. While reference is made to St Theresa's own words which inspired the work, Schama seems to be unaware of the long tradition in Roman Catholic Church (and outside) of equating physical ecstasy and sexual union, with Divine Love. St. Theresa's words, while better expressed, are in line with that tradition, and with words of other saints, but this episode erroneously paint them as exceptional, and even unique.

I saw 3 episodes of this series, the one on Bernini, Caravaggio and Rothko. The paintings are awesomely lit and Shama's observations are interesting and original but I could definitely go for less dramatization. The repeated shots of the Caravaggio's impersonator panting, sweating while fencing on his own are totally indulgent and don't add much to the story; the actor playing Rothko annoyingly trying to seem intense and interesting; these are unnecessary visuals that cheapen the content of the show. Do the producers think we need to see the artist's lives play-acted to engage us? Do they think their art is not enough for the viewer? I find that this approach is condescending and dumbs down the audience. The art, Shama's commentary and narration of the artist's history would have been excellent enough.

If Mr. Schama spoke any more slowly, more painstakingly divided his syllables, I might not recognize the language he speaks in.

More importantly, the writers and directors of pieces like this should recall what information is available at almost every viewer's fingertips. One can access a summary of most documentary subjects literally within a few minutes. I tested this hypothesis with the hour long piece on Turner. In a few keystrokes, I was able to find two summaries on the web that included most of the data Schama presents. Perhaps ten, 15 percent of what Schama tells or shows us remained harder to find, and what consisted of original analysis was nearly absent.

And what is the purpose of the cinema-like shots that suggest some sort of hint toward reenactments? There is often little rhyme or reason to when or why they occur. They last a second or two and seem selected based on their potential for filler and gloss. At one point, we see a hand in shallow focus scraping at a canvas. This is supposed to help us imagine Turner doing his work as a painter? Gimme a break.

Watching something like this is nearly a waste of time. I suppose you could turn down the volume and imagine your own narration. Better still, go to a museum or library instead. At least you'll get off your couch.

Whose Van Gogh is more nauseous, Kirk Douglas's or Andy Serkis's? Oh dear lord, how I wish I would have stopped watching this episode of Simon Schama's series, much as I stopped watching "Lust for Life"! How long before I can again look at one of his paintings without thinking of one of the worst examples of British overacting ever recorded? On top of this despicable performance, we are subjected to frenetic editing and oppressive sound effects. Deafening slurping of paint, pounding the canvas with the brush--I know painting and this is not painting. This is cheap pastiche after the video in the movie "The Ring". What a grotesque version of what was surely a beautiful-beautiful thing. Lastly and most reprehensibly, Mr. Schama takes advantage of the ignorant by presenting subjective opinion as fact. Van Gogh's Wheatfield is really the first piece of modern art? You say it so confidently it must be true--gimme a break. This is art history gone horribly wrong.

Highly recommended if you are not an art expert and want an entertaining introduction. These are not dull descriptions of piece after piece and esoteric opinions and pontificating. Schama attempts to liven things up and to set context by describing the artist and their environment as well as the art. He also tends to focus on a small number of pieces, which I think is a good idea. If he tried to cover the entirety of Picasso's or Van Gogh's work in an hour he'd put us to sleep. If you are someone highly educated on art, these are NOT for you. And judging from a couple of the reviews, some people have a serious problem with the erotic descriptions in the Bernini show...guess they don't like the association with the Roman Catholic church or something. I would ignore them. Worth your time, especially if you are trying to get someone interested in art without boring the ___ out of them.