In 1969, the BBC released a classic television series called “Civilisation” (spelled in the British way). This prior series was presented by the art historian Kenneth Clark, and also details the “art of the Western world.” I am a major fan of the Kenneth Clark series, as I describe here. But it is said that each generation writes its own history. Thus, in 1989, the BBC also engaged Michael Wood to make the series “Art of the Western World.” This was some twenty years after the making of the original “Civilisation.” Michael Wood was trained as a historian, and he is an excellent filmmaker and storyteller. But he seems to have no background in art history, and probably felt his lack of knowledge in this area when he made this film. Thus, in every episode, he sometimes delegated the presenting job to other people, whose expertise he presumably would have admired. This is a different technique from merely interviewing scholars, although he also did some of that as well (particularly in his last episode). Rather, he seems to have allowed his chosen scholars a great degree of creative control over certain segments of the film. He allowed them to say basically whatever they want, and narrate their segments as they see fit. He also gave them some creative control over what images were to be shown on screen during their presentations. I don’t think I’ve ever seen another documentary film that uses this distinctive technique. This allows him to compensate somewhat for his own lack of formal background in art history. That is, he sticks to what he knows, and Michael Wood knows quite a lot.
This series has different emphases than Kenneth Clark’s famous “Civilisation” series
The original broadcast came out as a series of 18 half-hour episodes. By contrast, this DVD changed the format somewhat. That is, they made it into a series of 9 full-hour episodes. Thankfully, the editing differences are only noticeable in their opening and closing credits. Most prominent is the change in episode titles that necessarily follows any change in the total number of episodes – although the hours, thankfully, are the same. I’m not sure why they wanted to change the format in this way, but the series is a good one regardless of exact formatting. (But moving on to some other important aspects of this series.) Comparisons to Kenneth Clark’s “Civilisation” may be inevitable here. Specifically, I might note that these two documentaries have very different emphases. Thus, comparing the two series may not be entirely fair, since it might be an “apples to oranges” thing. In general, I tended to enjoy the Kenneth Clark coverage somewhat better. But Michael Wood covers some things that Kenneth Clark doesn’t, so “Art of the Western World” offers some advantages over the more famous “Civilisation” series. In particular, Kenneth Clark focuses more on intellectual history (with the art used to illustrate changes in how people think), whereas Michael Wood focuses more on the art itself. I will now describe in detail what are their respective differences in emphasis, and how these two compare in the specific areas covered.
Ancient Greek vase
Michael Wood covers the Ancient Greeks and Romans, but has little on the Middle Ages
First of all, Michael Wood actually undertakes to cover the art of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. This is something that Kenneth Clark never undertook to do at all, except (briefly) to mention the fall of the Western Roman Empire in his first episode. This is the event that began the Early Middle Ages, better known in some circles as the “Dark Ages.” (More about the controversies surrounding that term here.) Neither series really attempts much coverage of the “Dark Ages,” so their omissions in this area are comparable. Thus, let me mention two other films that fill the void somewhat. One is a German film called “Great Epochs of European Art: Art of the Ancient Greeks & Romans” (more about that here.) As I detail in a review here, these are actually two episodes from a much larger German series. But these two episodes give the most in-depth television coverage that I know of, regarding the art of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Nonetheless, in some ways, Michael Wood may actually give better coverage of the subject in his one hour than the German series does in two hours. It’s just covered in a more interesting way by the BBC. The BBC also did a specific film called “The Dark Ages: An Age of Light.” This covered the art of the Dark Ages, which neither Michael Wood nor Kenneth Clark attempted to cover much. Thus, this film is much recommended to anyone interested in the subject. However, Kenneth Clark gives far more coverage of the later periods of medieval art. Kenneth Clark seems to have been particularly interested in Christian art, which may be why he is so impressed with this period. By contrast, Michael Wood reaches the Renaissance by the beginning of his third hour, meaning that only one of his nine hours focuses on any kind of prior medieval art.
Notre-Dame de la Belle-Verrière, part of the Chartres Cathedral in France
Raphael’s “The School of Athens” (painted during the Renaissance)
The two series give comparable emphasis to Baroque, Renaissance, and Enlightenment art
When it comes to the Renaissance, both Kenneth Clark and Michael Wood deliver solid coverage. My preference in this area may still be for Kenneth Clark’s coverage, but I loved hearing Michael Wood’s take on the art of the Renaissance. I also enjoy hearing from the various scholars, to whom Michael Wood delegates creative control of some of his program’s segments. These give a helpful (albeit more modern) take on the celebrated art of the Renaissance. Both series also give fantastic coverage of both Baroque and Enlightenment-era art, and of the art of the nineteenth century. For example, they give a good coverage of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. These nineteenth-century movements are among the last styles to which I can really relate much. If the reader will pardon a pun, they make a good “impression” on me. Much of this later art is centered around France in general, and Paris in particular. One gets a sense of how seriously the French take art. Nonetheless, Michael Wood has more emphasis on Spanish art (that is, the art of Spain) than does the Kenneth Clark series. This is one area that Michael Wood may actually cover better, since Kenneth Clark almost entirely omits the art of the Spaniards. Incidentally, American viewers are struck by how badly the British narrators pronounce these Spanish names. To Americans accustomed to the sound of Spanish, the pronunciation of the “u” in a name like “Velasquez” would sound rather silly. (The British pronounce it “Ve-LASS-kwezz,” with a “w” in place of the “u.”) But, then, I’m sure that the British would be equally appalled by American pronunciations of familiar French words, which are so well-known to the British. Differences between American English and British English become readily apparent here.
,%201912.jpg)
Wassily Kandinsky, Improvisation 27 (Garden of Love II), 1912 – modern abstract art
This series gives more emphasis to twentieth-century art, but is still good despite this
But getting back to the series: Michael Wood really distinguishes himself by talking about twentieth-century art. This is a subject that Kenneth Clark almost entirely omits, since his last episode is focused more on twentieth-century engineering marvels than twentieth-century “art” per se. By contrast, Michael Wood talks about people like Pablo Picasso in detail, and the often-abstract art of the later twentieth century. The last two hours of the film can probably claim a greater degree of unique coverage in this regard. That being said, I find the art of these later periods to be … well, a bit inaccessible. I sometimes feel like there’s a joke, and it’s on the viewer. The art is meant to be “deep” in some way, but instead tends to strike me as being rather silly. I’m sure that I would be labeled as a “philistine” for dismissing these avant-garde styles, including the postmodern styles. But I still find these styles to be a bit pretentious, and the influence of academia tends to taint some of this later discussion. In fairness, Michael Wood seems to be actually covering the art, and allowing some admiring postmodern types to explain it. Postmodern art is not quite as harmful as postmodern philosophy, but it seems to come close at times. I actually found these later episodes to be rather painful – which may be inevitable, given the (frankly) low quality of this period’s art itself. But this series still belongs on the shelf of the art history buff, as a distinctive perspective on the “Art of the Western World.” It is a good primer on Western art, which may complement and supplement the more famous Kenneth Clark perspective.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment