In a recent post I reviewed Kenneth Clark's 1969 TV series "Civilisation." Since then I've seen about 15 minutes each of two series regarded as replies to Clark: John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" from 1972, and "Civilisations" from 2018, with multiple hosts. 15 minutes of the first episode of each of these series has been all that I've been able to stand so far. However, if I review them without watching them in their entirety, I'll be repeating exactly the same mistake which I finally rectified in the recent post about Clark's series. I can say truthfully, however, that the thought of watching either "Ways of Seeing" or "Civilisations" in its entirety fills me with sadness and dread.
15 minutes of the first episode is also about all that I could stomach of Robert Hughes' 1980 series about modern art, "The Shock of the New." I will not review it without watching it all. But I will say that if Robert Hughes ever said anything about art which was new even as long ago as 1980, it would come as a shock to me.
However, I have found one more show about art besides Clark which I enjoyed watching in its entirely and which I can therefore honestly recommend: "This is Modern Art," a six-part series hosted by Matthew Collings, first aired in 1999.
I'd never heard of Collings either, but I found his show quite informative and satisfying. I like the way that Collings can appreciate aspects of the work even of artists with whom he has major disagreements. Notably, Matisse.
Collings asks rhetorically what Matisse's art is about, and answers: beauty. His paintings are very beautiful. Collings then asks: what else are they about, and answers: nothing, and it turns out that this is a problem, not only for Collings but also for many modern artists and modern art critics.
I hadn't realized that this was a problem. But then, I've never been to art school. The fact that for modern artists general, beauty is not enough, that their art is expected to engage with society in some other way, is a great help in explaining some conversations I've had with artists which had puzzled me.
Back to Collings and Matisse: despite Matisse doing things wrong in what is, to modern artists generally, a very major way, Collings spends a lot of time in his series on Matisse, and finds very much to praise in his work. He finds depth in beauty alone. Although it's entirely clear that this is not really Collings' kind of art, an entire episode of the series, entitled "Lovely Lovely," is devoted to artists who only want to make their art pretty. The openness which Collings shows to these artists is quite impressive to me. Finding things to agree about with those with whom you fundamentally disagree: to me this is a sign of a very sharp mind.
Other artists to whom Collings devotes a lot of time, and who seem to be more up his general alley, include Dali, Warhol, Goya, Pollack, Judd and Koons. He manages to be quite witty and quite deep at the same time. Not very many of us can do that, it's sometimes harder than it looks.
No comments:
Post a Comment