Civilisations BBC 2

[Richard Tarleton]

Although I don't recall this being stated explicitly in the first programme, of course painting, sculpture, architecture are only one aspect of civilisation(s) - or, rather, three aspects - and they are what the series chose, mostly, to address. Of course they work better for television than, say, the law, education or literature!

Historians also tend to ignore such things as biogeography, natural resources, climate, the things which influence the inception and continued existence of civilisations, which lie outside their areas of expertise or narrow specialisms and which they don't really understand. I went through the system myself, specialising in amongst other things the history of Europe mid 18th C onwards. I doubt if any of the distinguished names who taught me could have told me much about the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, certainly nobody ever mentioned it - see also here (things are better now ).

I read not long ago (sadly can't remember the name of the book or author) about just how much natural resources (daily wagonloads of corn etc.) were required to sustain a Roman legion or two on the frontiers of empire (either at the expense of the immediate locals, on top of sustaining themselves, or carted in from further away - how much corn was required to feed the oxen pulling the carts, etc. etc.). The environmental model was unsustainable, the system bound to collapse. Loads of other examples, Jared Diamond passim...Parallels with today - gas from Middle East brought here by ships powered by...gas...the resources used to create the infrastructure required to harness wind, etc. etc....

AA Gill did say, by way of explaining himself, that TV is a very lookist medium, and that if people invite themselves into our living rooms by way of the box in the corner that we're entitled to a point of view....

[kernelbogey]

Richard, I gave up history pre O level at school no less than 58 years ago! So I'm not on a par with you and others in debating this series. But you've made me start thinking about civilisation-power-empire in a way that I haven't quite before. That was explicit in David O's programme about empire, but of course also the subtext to Mary B's and SS's narratives....

[Belgrove]

Historians also tend to ignore such things as biogeography, natural resources, climate, the things which influence the inception and continued existence of civilisations, which lie outside their areas of expertise or narrow specialisms and which they don't really understand.

Indeed so. Tim Marshall's book Prisoners of Geography provides a readable account of how the terrain and natural resources of a region influences the societies that emerge there and their ability to evolve. It picks up on many of the themes explored by Diamond's more scholarly analyses, and adds the geo-political perspectives. It's an area much broader, and possibly more interesting, than the remit of Civilisations, whose approach is rather skewed by the interests of its presenters and they issues the wish to air.

[ardcarp]

Btw I take issue with those who mourn the presence of presenters on screen. I have little doubt that the same material, with presenters only as voice(s) over,would make dull television and gain far fewer viewers.

Oh well, chacun, etc. However since you mentioned three visual things (painting, sculpture and architecture) I would far rather the camera probed those than a gesticulating presenter. They don't even speak, normally. It's as if they've been through some BBC, er, programme on how to talk to an audience.

[eighthobstruction]

Oh well, chacun, etc. However since you mentioned three visual things (painting, sculpture and architecture) I would far rather the camera probed those than a gesticulating presenter. They don't even speak, normally. It's as if they've been through some BBC, er, programme on how to talk to an audience.

....indeed....that's all I'm saying....indeed

[Serial_Apologist]

Oh well, chacun, etc. However since you mentioned three visual things (painting, sculpture and architecture) I would far rather the camera probed those than a gesticulating presenter. They don't even speak, normally. It's as if they've been through some BBC, er, programme on how to talk to an audience.

What? the artifacts don't normally speak, or speak normally, or the presenters? If the former, in either sense, then I agree!

[ardcarp]

Ho ho.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ho ho.

[Richard Tarleton]

I thought last night's was a beautifully constructed and hugely enjoyable programme. A minor detail - interesting to see/hear him rhapsodising over Las Meninas only a couple of weeks after Andrew Graham Dixon doing the same....

One of the pictures he showed reminded me of something John Berger says - "[...the painted poor]...smile showing their teeth, which the rich in pictures never do. They smile at the better-off - to ingratiate themselves, but also at the prospect of a sale or a job. Such pictures assert two things: that the poor are happy, and that the better-off are a source of hope for the world".

Last week's on religion didn't do a lot for me. I'm sorry, but there is a huge gulf between the ways - I can only assume the producer and cameraman - decide to present Mary Beard and Simon Schama on screen. The latter's screen presence - pieces to camera, walking shots, whatever - are relevant and businesslike. We don't get moody profile shots, backlit shots, windblown shots. And I have no idea what his shoes look like - we didn't get a close-up of them when he was in the mosque. If there is sexism in the critical reaction, it starts with them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I thought last night's was a beautifully constructed and hugely enjoyable programme. A minor detail - interesting to see/hear him rhapsodising over Las Meninas only a couple of weeks after Andrew Graham Dixon doing the same....

- hugely informative and entertaining. (That bit about Cellini's Perseus turning Michelangelo's David into stone had me guffawing!)

Last week's on religion didn't do a lot for me. I'm sorry, but there is a huge gulf between the ways - I can only assume the producer and cameraman - decide to present Mary Beard and Simon Schama on screen. The latter's screen presence - pieces to camera, walking shots, whatever - are relevant and businesslike. We don't get moody profile shots, backlit shots, windblown shots. And I have no idea what his shoes look like - we didn't get a close-up of them when he was in the mosque. If there is sexism in the critical reaction, it starts with them.

- Absolutely! I cannot begin to comprehend why MB has agreed to this sort of treatment (or, possibly, suggested it herself): her earlier TV work had none of this sort of ... ahem> ... footage. Irrelevant and very distracting.

[Serial_Apologist]

I kept worrying that Schama's jacket was about to burst its buttons. Why does he have to keep it done up, I wondered?

[Richard Tarleton]

I kept worrying that Schama's jacket was about to burst its buttons. Why does he have to keep it done up, I wondered?

Were you following the Endeavour thread recently, S_A? Schama quite correct to keep the top button of his 2-buttoned jacket fastened (see here), trouble is it was a very badly fitting jacket, the top button occurring just above his embonpoint. With these little distractions, it's hard to concentrate.

[vinteuil]

Were you following the Endeavour thread recently, S_A? Schama quite correct to keep the top button of his 2-buttoned jacket fastened (see here), trouble is it was a very badly fitting jacket, the top button occurring just above his embonpoint. With these little distractions, it's hard to concentrate.

... far more worrying is his decision to keep the top two (possibly three) buttons of his shirt undone. Not to be ageist - but - at that age, it is not becoming, Dr Schama...

.

[eighthobstruction]

....David Olusoga....watched a couple of days ago....I thought he would start in Benin, and so he did....he was good....I didn't have to will it to end as I do with SS and MB.

....still not ringing any bells for me though....and no big questions left hanging....

[Serial_Apologist]

Were you following the Endeavour thread recently, S_A? Schama quite correct to keep the top button of his 2-buttoned jacket fastened (see here), trouble is it was a very badly fitting jacket, the top button occurring just above his embonpoint. With these little distractions, it's hard to concentrate.

I see! Being American, that video on sartorial protocol must be right, given that it gets hot in parts of the US where businessmen are still to be seen in suits.