Civilisations BBC 2

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Many thanks, Belgrove and Richard.



I actually have a copy of Sapiens waiting on my shelves to be read, so I'll read that before I make any more higgerent comments.

[Richard Tarleton]

I actually have a copy of Sapiens waiting on my shelves to be read, so I'll read that before I make any more higgerent comments.

[Serial_Apologist]

I've always thought that one important reason we make artifacts that have no useful function other than to be looked at or listened to, or read, is to reassure ourselves that what I see is the same as what you see, or to help understand what it is that differs about me in the way I see, listen to or read that thing compared with you, or them. The significance of making things of out natural materials - and what else was there at one time for the purpose? - and then appreciating them for how they represent that which comes out of, and then sustains, the same source as ourselves, constitutes (for me) that "spiritual" dimension of what we have in common, whose proclamation in rituals, visits to galleries, museums, theatres, concert halls, mediates and confirms a hard-wired sense of "belongingness" which comes prior to language, and any divisiveness inherent in mistaking description for the described, and yet is always latent in concretised experience, as is the possiblity of organising civilisation in such a way as to make space for it. A single elementary movement of feedback. I have difficulties in approaching art which is about art.

[Lat-Literal]

I've always thought that one important reason we make artifacts that have no useful function other than to be looked at or listened to, or read, is to reassure ourselves that what I see is the same as what you see, or to help understand what it is that differs about me in the way I see, listen to or read that thing compared with you, or them. The significance of making things of out natural materials - and what else was there at one time for the purpose? - and then appreciating them for how they represent that which comes out of, and then sustains, the same source as ourselves, constitutes (for me) that "spiritual" dimension of what we have in common, whose proclamation in rituals, visits to galleries, museums, theatres, concert halls, mediates and confirms a hard-wired sense of "belongingness" which comes prior to language, and any divisiveness inherent in mistaking description for the described, and yet is always latent in concretised experience, as is the possiblity of organising civilisation in such a way as to make space for it. A single elementary movement of feedback. I have difficulties in approaching art which is about art.

The second episode which is presented by Mary Beard, "How Do We Look?", might be relevant here. Apparently - I have only seen the first few minutes of it - it is focussed on physical appearance but there are obvious links to be made with belongingness. However, I note that one of the many people called Gompartz on the BBC, Will, is not only slagging off the series but has highlighted this particular episode for especial criticism. Elsewhere, he argues that the start of the series which depicts Islamic terrorists destroying art is weak because Schama should have investigated the causes rather than simply condemning it. This, I feel, was precisely not the way to go although it is being covered at length in many other programmes.

From my own perspective:

I note too that appreciation of the visual arts is one of the few things in life that does not involve physical effort. It might well be that one of the principal functions of art is to provide the illusion that certain things are easy. That, I think, is an extension of the eye rather than art per se for it also applies to other spectacles, many of which do not have a painting's stillness. To view someone in a kayak, or on a bike, is not necessarily to perceive the effort such things take or the ability. It will suggest freedom but the greater freedom is in the observer rather than the artist or participant. Only the observer in those moments is in a mind that is liberated from the rigours of the body. These considerations are important when it comes to feelings of spirituality. Here there is a physiological dimension to what would be in conventional religion related to concepts of the freeing of the soul as it rises into heaven.

That it should be able to be experienced when alive is the spectator's privilege but it can only ever be the hardworking artist's objective. Consequently, the optical illusion works in both directions. This is to say that there is an element of self-delusion in the artist about his role. He has a somewhat erroneous sense of his own freedom of expression and the freeing impacts on others he thinks he alone conveys. For example, in Episode 7, we are shown how Giambattista Tiepolo's ceiling fresco "Apollo and the Four Continents" at the Bishop’s palace in Wurzburg is "a grand opera of light, colour and dancing line: a dizzying lift-off into 18th century elation". As the stairs towards it are ascended, it not only impresses in its depiction of earthly activities within a context of allegory but for the manner in which when viewed closely it transmits a sense of movement. Movement is freedom, Schama declares in this context.

Well, yes, I suppose that it is in some ways but in comparative terms it isn't the spectators who are lacking in it when at the palace but rather it was Tiepolo for as long as he was stuck in the hard work of his creation. For the spectator is not merely liberated from his body in the stillness of perceiving art or other performance. He is also at liberty both to walk towards, reaching upwards and not to walk or to walk first and, having glimpsed, just walk effortlessly away. In higher beings, whoever they are, there are the constraints of full time occupation.

[eighthobstruction]

....episode 1....poor....no better than the sort of first introduction one might get in a Art Foundation class....huge leap to Petra a real misleading mistake....

[Richard Tarleton]

Elsewhere, he argues that the start of the series which depicts Islamic terrorists destroying art is weak because Schama should have investigated the causes rather than simply condemning it.

I've recently read The Darkening Age - The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, by Catherine Nixey, which makes a point possibly overlooked by Schama (and Gompertz, of whom I am not a fan). She starts by describing the destruction of Palmyra by marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots, moving in packs of up to 500 - "Their targets were the temples and the attacks could be astonishingly swift. Great stone columns that had stood for centuries collapsed in an afternoon; statues that had stood for half a millennium had their faces mutilated in a moment...". She's talking about the destruction of Palmyra by the early Christians in 385 AD. The temple (and marble statue) of Athena...anything that smacked of pantheism....

All religious zealots as bad as each other.

[Lat-Literal]

I've recently read The Darkening Age - The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, by Catherine Nixey, which makes a point possibly overlooked by Schama (and Gompertz, of whom I am not a fan). She starts by describing the destruction of Palmyra by marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots, moving in packs of up to 500 - "Their targets were the temples and the attacks could be astonishingly swift. Great stone columns that had stood for centuries collapsed in an afternoon; statues that had stood for half a millennium had their faces mutilated in a moment...". She's talking about the destruction of Palmyra by the early Christians in 385 AD. The temple (and marble statue) of Athena...anything that smacked of pantheism....

All religious zealots as bad as each other.

Yes indeed - and it isn't just a problem with religion.

Additionally, the current extreme form of Islamism is more a tribalism but whereas in tribalism there is often some sense of traditional order here that has been replaced by notions about religion pasted on. It is a veneer which is paraded as depth. No doubt in the minds of participants that is to some extent believed to represent justification. But few would deny that in actuality there is a considerable economic component and direct links historically to western involvement in regions other than the west. It also has its supporters in the west. It has the use of the sort of sophisticated video technology that is more often associated with pop music. It is skilled in the internet. It is very western in that sense although the age difference is of significance. Young. Few people in retirement homes. Consequently, there is also a substantial strand that would be best defined as a latter day Rebel Without a Cause.

These things are not for "Civilisations" but for another programme.

[ardcarp]

There was an interesting (but probably unintended) slant on Civilisation(s) on BBC4 last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m772h

A Northwest American people, whose descendants still occupy the region, were not agriculturalists, but the bounty of their surroundings (fish, forest, etc), made them settled to the extent of producing stylised artworks of some complexity.

(It was probably one of those programmes BBC4 recycles ad nauseam, but it was a first time for me.)

[Nick Armstrong]

....episode 1....poor....no better than the sort of first introduction one might get in a Art Foundation class....huge leap to Petra a real misleading mistake....

Going to have to watch this thing, I guess, to see whom I agree with here!

Intriguing that the BBC's own "arts correspondent" trashes what is presumably supposed to be a jewel in the BBC's crown, here - mind you, it is the frequently-absurd Gompertz.

Can't fault their/his "impartiality" though....

[Richard Tarleton]

Going to have to watch this thing, I guess, to see whom I agree with here!

Intriguing that the BBC's own "arts correspondent" trashes what is presumably supposed to be a jewel in the BBC's crown, here - mind you, it is the frequently-absurd Gompertz.

Can't fault their/his "impartiality" though....

Curious indeed. I didn't so much notice Schama's hands as his waistline.....

I've read one Schama book, the outstanding Landscape and Memory. Likewise Mary Beard's SPQR. The other guy I don't know at all, so looking forward to his segments.

[jean]

I've recently read The Darkening Age - The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, by Catherine Nixey, which makes a point possibly overlooked by Schama (and Gompertz, of whom I am not a fan). She starts by describing the destruction of Palmyra by marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots, moving in packs of up to 500 - "Their targets were the temples and the attacks could be astonishingly swift. Great stone columns that had stood for centuries collapsed in an afternoon; statues that had stood for half a millennium had their faces mutilated in a moment...". She's talking about the destruction of Palmyra by the early Christians in 385 AD. The temple (and marble statue) of Athena...anything that smacked of pantheism.... All religious zealots as bad as each other.

Yes!

And given that Schama was so keen to deprivilege Western art, it was very surprising indeed that he mentioned neither this detruction by Christians of art they considered 'pagan', nor the much more recent destruction of Western Christian artefacts by other Western Christians.

Why no image of (for example) the Lady Chapel at Ely?


I was just preparing myself to pour ridicule on Gompertz, but I see he makes this very point:

...There is no mention made of similarly barbaric acts that have taken place over millennia - on occasion perpetrated by a civilisation much closer to home...


.

[jean]

...The other guy I don't know at all...

You have just missed your best chance of finding out!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9

[Lat-Literal]

Yes!

And given that Schama was so keen to deprivilege Western art, it was very surprising indeed that he mentioned neither this detruction by Christians of art they considered 'pagan', nor the much more recent destruction of Western Christian artefacts by other Western Christians.

Why no image of (for example) the Lady Chapel at Ely?


I was just preparing myself to pour ridicule on Gompertz, but I see he makes this very point:

...There is no mention made of similarly barbaric acts that have taken place over millennia - on occasion perpetrated by a civilisation much closer to home...


.

While I take the point, this would have played into the definition of a criticised ISIS as being a criticised Islam and to a lesser extent that the saviours of antiquities are Christians who continue to place Christian artefacts first. Al-Asaad was not a Christian. UNESCO is not especially geared towards Christianity. And whatever the complexities of Palmyra in the past - Schama described it as a place where many different peoples mixed - the main point was that this "ensemble of antiquity" was in the modern world "there for believers and unbelievers" as an international symbol of civilisation.

By definition, to present ISIS principally as destructive thugs is to remove any possibility of it being presented principally as Islamic with the terrible burden on Muslim people that comes with that distortion. Also, even if choices are made to hear criticism of ISIS as criticism of Islam, the opposing team in the terms as set out is not Christianity but rather a cross-cultural political perspective with a significant element of secularism. In fact, in contexts where no individual religious dogma is viewed as paramount, those contexts are principally secular at the very least in their inference.

[Richard Tarleton]

I was just preparing myself to pour ridicule on Gompertz, but I see he makes this very point:

...There is no mention made of similarly barbaric acts that have taken place over millennia - on occasion perpetrated by a civilisation much closer to home...


.

Indeed, thank you, and apologies to Gompertz. And for the Olusuga link, didn't get round to watching that....

[Lat-Literal]

Indeed, thank you, and apologies to Gompertz. And for the Olusuga link, didn't get round to watching that....

It's a dangerous game.

I sense that you and Jean come from the same school that would have it that every working class person starving to death in Victorian Britain was directly responsible for slavery.

Opposition to Christianity at every available opportunity may seem academically robust but when exercised without due care it is inevitably an obscured form of self-flagellation.