Most Helpful Customer Reviews
23 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Enjoyable enough, but a bit silly, 24 Feb 2009
This is an enjoyable series that is informative for an audience fresh to art theory. But there are some caveats. Firstly, its contention that the "images in people's minds" led to the development of agriculture, and therefore the modern world, is philosophical idealism of the sort that got shelved in the 19th century.
Secondly, it loves to builds up to absurd dramatic climaxes, wasting a great deal of time in the process. As another reviewer has pointed out, Nigel Spivey puts one rhetorical question after another, leaving the poor viewer begging for him to get on with it. A great chunk of programme five is dedicated to a huge build-up to the 'great storytelling secret' of the Aborigines, only to reveal that they combined stories with music. Oh.
Thirdly it makes a number of unfounded assertions, such as, "it was Augustus's use of images that enabled him to maintain his power". Actually no - his political actions did that. The images are another expression of it, but images just don't have that sort of power. Idealism again! Images rarely, if ever, change history, although they may seem to by reflecting the social forces that actually change things.
Still, you'll enjoy it so long as you keep a critical mind.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
43 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Simplistic but enthralling, 26 July 2005
This is great television, a real journey. Not since Kenneth Clark's epic televisual history of art, 'Civilisation', has there been such ambition and engagement with art from its inception and archaeological discoveries to the present day. It makes for fascinating television. While serious art students will find nothing new, for the general viewer and those with more than a passing interest in art history it provides arguments and conjectures concerning the 'why' and 'when' of art. A few criticisms: Spivey, the presenter, presents some very personal views and it is clear that his favourite pieces are European, in fact Italian. Uncontroversial. More seriously, the tricksy editing and fancy photography sometimes works but is often too fussy. But it is never offputting, and we must remember this series is designed to have broad public appeal rather than sit in the Open University slot. All in all, a thrilling rollercoaster ride through milennia of art history, one that I will recommend to my (university) students as well as to my family.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
all promise but no delivery, 26 Jan 2011
there are three other series that i would like to compare this series to - kenneth clark's 'civilisation', robert hughes' 'shock of the new', and simon schama's 'the power of art'. sadly, i can't make any meaningful comparisions. the gap is just too great. for whereas clark's, hughes', and schama's works are all worth the time of looking, this series simply fails into unsupported thoughts that emerge from nowhere and lead back into nothing. i even looked at the series twice, thinking that I must have missed something. I didnt.
anyone thinking of looking at this programme would be better off looking at other programmes more worthwhile, such as clark's or schama's or hughes (if you can get a hold of it), for in spite of their faults, they still give good value. 'how art made the world' just left me waiting...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|