Civilisation

As relevant now as ever as our civilisation is exhausted and giving way to the machines.

With AI, in a Terminator future, without the paradox of time travel - there is no hope for Arnie coming back to save us, time, the fourth dimension makes it impossible.

Made a long time ago, 50 years or so, using queens English and eloquent speech. It shows us we are doomed, every civilisation destroys itself after a few thousand years, mayans, Egyptians, Romans.

We don't have long, enjoy it while you can.

It's a fascinating documentary series, 4 hours to let you know where you came from, and where you are going to.

Clark becomes tiresome by modern standards. His focus is almost entirely on art and architecture omitting elements of science that could be legitimately included.

I was a young man in my impressionable early-20s, when Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" made its appearance on American television. I recall, at the time, thinking what ambition to entitle a program so. Public Broadcasting had not been around for many years, and I expected a stodgy, pompous, supercilious approach to the subject of art and civilization, especially as it was coming from Britain. Surely, this was a program for the elite, the snobs of the art world, the aristocrats of Europe who had access to such treasures. Kenneth Clark truly changed those first impressions, presenting in a gentle, understandable way some of the great treasures of the human species. These pieces were no longer remote, mysterious objects stuffed away in some dusty museum or moldering palace. He clearly taught about each of his choices, seeming to enjoy the opportunity to pass on to the viewer his love and admiration for these works and their meaning, as they related to the modern world and to the world long past in which they were created. He was humorous and wise, and the photography was stunning. I immediately changed my major in college to art history and, although I never became wealthy from the education, I have always appreciated what I did learn, beginning with the inspiration provided by Kenneth Clark and "Civilisation." Mr. Clark became one of those people with whom I wish I could have spent an afternoon, just listening. I haven't seen the program in many years, though it was re-run often after its first showing. I would like to see this back on television, or on DVD. I do believe it was the inspiration for many similar, and more famous programs to follow and was part of that exceptional time in television when the UK sent us its best - "Civilisation", "The First Churchills", "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", "Elizabeth R", and "I, Claudius."

If "Civilisation" ever reappears, do yourself a favor. Sit back in an easy chair, tone down the distractions, have a good hot coffee, and enjoy the story of your past. It's shared by all of us, and Kenneth Clark will introduce you to yourself.

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.

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.