I am a lifelong fan of Kenneth Clark's original series (and its companion programs such as "The Ascent of Man" and "The Age of Uncertainty") but I think that the three presenters here really outdid themselves.
Let's be honest, Clark's view of the world is interesting and his classicism is compelling, but he was also proudly and famously a fairly conservative westerner at the end of the day. His view shouldn't be removed from TV channels, sure, but it's great to have an updated look at cultures from around the world, and taking into account another 50 years of scholarship since Clark wrote his piece (50!).
Another reviewer here - the only one thus far as I write this - lamented that both this and the original were only about art, not civilisation, and I feel I must defend. First of all, the original series was commissioned as a "personal view", not a wide-ranging study in the manner of Attenborough. But also both Clark in his first episode, and Simon Schama in this first episode, explain very clearly that they believe art is an access point into the mind of a culture. Schama states that art is where the essential nature of a particular culture expresses itself, where we can find a window into the people. And Clark of course quotes the great Ruskin: "Great Nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art." (Ruskin goes on to clarify that, while we must read all three of those books, only the art can actually be trusted as time goes on.)
Is it perfect? Well, of course not. 9 episodes can never encompass everything humanity has to offer. But isn't that the beauty of having decades of documentaries available to us? No single Attenborough documentary covers everything, but we have access to all of them. So too with the many works on civilisation and art, of which Clark is one, and now the impressive viewpoints of Schama, Mary Beard, and David Olusoga are another.
Let's be honest, Clark's view of the world is interesting and his classicism is compelling, but he was also proudly and famously a fairly conservative westerner at the end of the day. His view shouldn't be removed from TV channels, sure, but it's great to have an updated look at cultures from around the world, and taking into account another 50 years of scholarship since Clark wrote his piece (50!).
Another reviewer here - the only one thus far as I write this - lamented that both this and the original were only about art, not civilisation, and I feel I must defend. First of all, the original series was commissioned as a "personal view", not a wide-ranging study in the manner of Attenborough. But also both Clark in his first episode, and Simon Schama in this first episode, explain very clearly that they believe art is an access point into the mind of a culture. Schama states that art is where the essential nature of a particular culture expresses itself, where we can find a window into the people. And Clark of course quotes the great Ruskin: "Great Nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art." (Ruskin goes on to clarify that, while we must read all three of those books, only the art can actually be trusted as time goes on.)
Is it perfect? Well, of course not. 9 episodes can never encompass everything humanity has to offer. But isn't that the beauty of having decades of documentaries available to us? No single Attenborough documentary covers everything, but we have access to all of them. So too with the many works on civilisation and art, of which Clark is one, and now the impressive viewpoints of Schama, Mary Beard, and David Olusoga are another.