I think Simon Schama may be my biggest influence in studying Art History. He and Sister Wendy have made this so fascinating to me. I hope I get to meet him in person one day! Thanks so much for posting this. I think it's his best work.
Schama is a Genius. This closing brings tears to my eyes, as does sitting in the Rothko Room, a confrontation with oneself, very powerful. Thank you Simon Schama for bringing me to Rothko.
Before I saw my first Rothko painting over 30 years ago, I would have thought this was pretentious nonsense. However, that first experience of Rothko changed my mind completely about the power of art. It made me feel as if my heart was being ripped out of my body. So yes, I agree.
I hate the BBC. I discovered the BBC documentary series about art in the world presented by the then unknown to me until that time, the master of masters, Simon Shama. It was love at first sight. Through it, I discovered the treasures of Bernini's sculptures and fell in love with abstract paintings by Rotko, for example, whom I also didn't know. I immersed myself in the paintings of the Great Ones and learned their stories. I could see and feel the beauty of his works and I fell in love with them. This was only possible thanks to the showing of this series on TV Cultural in my country, but it no longer exists. Years passed and almost everything was forgotten by me by time. Today, I am much older, I imagined rescuing that television masterpiece on TH-cam, but, to my sadness, because of copyright, almost nothing from this series can be shown here. I believe that not only me, but a whole generation of souls is deprived of this knowledge, of the fantastic dissemination didactic that was the award of this series about art in the world, and why? For money? I still have no money to acquire this particular magnificent work that made me love art more than ever. But what about the young people who are coming around? Is it fair to deprive them of such a marvel of television, of such knowledge? BBC, in doing so, thinking only of financial gain, you harm more than you help to improve the world. Publish this magnificent work that you have done for free and enter into eternity where the great masters of the arts are.
@porfavormeudeus Firstly, I'll take "being nuts" as a compliment, if only because normalcy is overrated. Secondly, yes. You can, in fact, ruin someone else's day with that comment. For example, the person who posted this video probably doesn't like having it ruined with your pointless statement. Thirdly, if this video isn't about deeper meanings in art than what is on the surface, then tell me what it is. Simon Schama's videos are about going into depth about things.
@porfavormeudeus Why bother posting that? What purpose does it serve other than to tell us how immature and impolite you are? If that's the impression you want us to get, then you've succeeded, but I'm amazed you would want people to think so negatively of you. This is a video about appreciating the deeper meanings of life than day-to-day bodily functions. I'm sorry you've failed to see that. And more than that, I'm sorry you had the gall to ruin someone else's day with your comment.
@@room111photography5 Somehow I *just* got this...O.o 2020 strikes again. Yes, you're right. I did. But I hate seeing something so beautiful and heartfelt being so disrespected.
I agree he is a real wordsmith but when you try to translate the feeling a work of art you enjoy into language then it loses meaning and of course it's completely subjective meaning what he said was in fact meaningless to anyone but himself
I think this is not a very careful handling of the subjective-objective concepts: You try to use objectivity to nail down what subjective experience - what meaning - other people get out of his words! Maybe someone thought what he said was meaningful and you would be truly wrong then.
Very eloquent, very poetic, but Rothko's art is banal compared to for example Morris Lewis or Frantisek Kupka. Rothko's fame has mainly been constructed by a handful of art dealers and historians.
Yeah, the problem with Rothco is that it relies on having to read a paragraph in order to "get it." Part 2, with it being void of symbols or recognizable imagery, it relies on the viewer to provide most of the content. It is clever in that respect. There is more to say, but I suppose it gives people something to talk about as opposed to a painting of apples.
I think Simon Schama may be my biggest influence in studying Art History. He and Sister Wendy have made this so fascinating to me. I hope I get to meet him in person one day! Thanks so much for posting this. I think it's his best work.
When I saw "The Power of Art: David", It changed the way i teach.
Sister Wendy’s treatise on Edward Hopper was masterful and I consider myself a Hopper aficionado.
Schama is a Genius. This closing brings tears to my eyes, as does sitting in the Rothko Room, a confrontation with oneself, very powerful. Thank you Simon Schama for bringing me to Rothko.
Simon Schama - One of the lords of language
Best TV art documentary ever.
Simon Schama is a genius presenter and storyteller.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Before I saw my first Rothko painting over 30 years ago, I would have thought this was pretentious nonsense. However, that first experience of Rothko changed my mind completely about the power of art. It made me feel as if my heart was being ripped out of my body. So yes, I agree.
Brilliant I can’t wait for my first time
Agreed, my first Rothko experience was in L.A. which was next to some Banksi garbage..... it was a sad combination 😔
respect @ Simon Schama...he's a wonderful art critic and historian...after Schama's documentary, I understood Rothko.
What a wonderful clip.
..... can we please have the whole Rothko.... I remember it was superb
always a bit melodramatic but that's what i like about him. he's a great documentarian.
I was deeply moved.
I hate the BBC. I discovered the BBC documentary series about art in the world presented by the then unknown to me until that time, the master of masters, Simon Shama. It was love at first sight. Through it, I discovered the treasures of Bernini's sculptures and fell in love with abstract paintings by Rotko, for example, whom I also didn't know. I immersed myself in the paintings of the Great Ones and learned their stories. I could see and feel the beauty of his works and I fell in love with them. This was only possible thanks to the showing of this series on TV Cultural in my country, but it no longer exists. Years passed and almost everything was forgotten by me by time. Today, I am much older, I imagined rescuing that television masterpiece on TH-cam, but, to my sadness, because of copyright, almost nothing from this series can be shown here. I believe that not only me, but a whole generation of souls is deprived of this knowledge, of the fantastic dissemination didactic that was the award of this series about art in the world, and why? For money? I still have no money to acquire this particular magnificent work that made me love art more than ever. But what about the young people who are coming around? Is it fair to deprive them of such a marvel of television, of such knowledge? BBC, in doing so, thinking only of financial gain, you harm more than you help to improve the world. Publish this magnificent work that you have done for free and enter into eternity where the great masters of the arts are.
You need the first part with Schama arriving at the Tate back in the 70s to put it in context.
Tryna hit that essay word count be like
Let it be.
This reminds me of the scene from the Orson Welles film "F for Fake" where he speaks about the Chartres cathedral.
He's right
@porfavormeudeus Firstly, I'll take "being nuts" as a compliment, if only because normalcy is overrated. Secondly, yes. You can, in fact, ruin someone else's day with that comment. For example, the person who posted this video probably doesn't like having it ruined with your pointless statement. Thirdly, if this video isn't about deeper meanings in art than what is on the surface, then tell me what it is. Simon Schama's videos are about going into depth about things.
I agree. Noticed the same thing when watching the documentary. He was moved by Rothko.
Apparently you haven’t seen the ending of *THE POWER OF ART DAVID*
alright love
Yeah that was good.
Never noticed how he pronounces 'ssssss.'
0:35
What is this called?
@porfavormeudeus Why bother posting that? What purpose does it serve other than to tell us how immature and impolite you are? If that's the impression you want us to get, then you've succeeded, but I'm amazed you would want people to think so negatively of you. This is a video about appreciating the deeper meanings of life than day-to-day bodily functions. I'm sorry you've failed to see that. And more than that, I'm sorry you had the gall to ruin someone else's day with your comment.
There's a reason it's called trolling. And you bit.
@@room111photography5 Somehow I *just* got this...O.o 2020 strikes again. Yes, you're right. I did. But I hate seeing something so beautiful and heartfelt being so disrespected.
i would add robert hughes
old age is the truth but it comes too late every mind and voice is a paid pawn
@tvpaker2008 XD I'm just glad most people have more respect and decency than that.
Questallll
Your head shakes move too much. Can you control it sir?
vocal sync issue
Rothko is the greatest ever painter, even Angelo doesn't get close
His head movements give me anxiety
Your head shakes too much
I agree he is a real wordsmith but when you try to translate the feeling a work of art you enjoy into language then it loses meaning and of course it's completely subjective meaning what he said was in fact meaningless to anyone but himself
I think this is not a very careful handling of the subjective-objective concepts: You try to use objectivity to nail down what subjective experience - what meaning - other people get out of his words! Maybe someone thought what he said was meaningful and you would be truly wrong then.
since when did the appreciation of an artwork become an objective experience?
Very eloquent, very poetic, but Rothko's art is banal compared to for example Morris Lewis or Frantisek Kupka. Rothko's fame has mainly been constructed by a handful of art dealers and historians.
Much of modern art is a cleverly disguised asset class for the rich. They buy and flip. Pump and dump. It's a game.
How utterly pretentious
Yeah, pretentious when u r jealous, when u cannot use language like him.
Yeah, the problem with Rothco is that it relies on having to read a paragraph in order to "get it." Part 2, with it being void of symbols or recognizable imagery, it relies on the viewer to provide most of the content. It is clever in that respect. There is more to say, but I suppose it gives people something to talk about as opposed to a painting of apples.
Great snobbiness and pretentiousness
Ask the guy in the street what he thinks about a bit of red stuck on a canvas.
Guy on the street is, frankly, a complete moron.
Seems like we already have the answer from your comment, Mr nobody
my god this is life from birth till death its not somehing for yhe young this is the unwanted wisdom from age its horrific bur t rue