|
Simon Schama's Power of Art (2006– )In each episode historian Simon Schama treats, in his own erudite, unconventional and somewhat socially engaged style, a work of art from a great master. He concentrates not just on the art... See full summary » |
| 0Share... |
User Lists
Related lists from IMDb users
Share this Rating
Title: Simon Schama's Power of Art (2006– )
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
Edit
Plot Summary
|
Add Synopsis
Storyline
In each episode historian Simon Schama treats, in his own erudite, unconventional and somewhat socially engaged style, a work of art from a great master. He concentrates not just on the art history as such, but mainly on the relationship between the work and the historical context of its creation, as this touches the significance of and vision on the subject as well as the life of the artist: where and when did he produce it, why, for which destination... Written by KGF Vissers
Genres:
HistoryParents Guide:
Add content advisory for parents »
Edit
See full technical specs »
Details
Country:
UKLanguage:
EnglishRelease Date:
20 October 2006 (UK) See more »Also Known As:
I dynami tis tehnis See more »Company Credits
Show detailed
company contact information
on
IMDbPro »
Whose Van Gogh is more nauseous, Kirk Douglas's or Andy Serkis's? Oh dear lord, how I wish I would have stopped watching this episode of Simon Schama's series, much as I stopped watching "Lust for Life"! How long before I can again look at one of his paintings without thinking of one of the worst examples of British overacting ever recorded? On top of this despicable performance, we are subjected to frenetic editing and oppressive sound effects. Deafening slurping of paint, pounding the canvas with the brush--I know painting and this is not painting. This is cheap pastiche after the video in the movie "The Ring". What a grotesque version of what was surely a beautiful-beautiful thing. Lastly and most reprehensibly, Mr. Schama takes advantage of the ignorant by presenting subjective opinion as fact. Van Gogh's Wheatfield is really the first piece of modern art? You say it so confidently it must be true--gimme a break. This is art history gone horribly wrong.