06-19-2018 10:24:27 PM -0700
06-19-2018 07:02:46 PM -0700
06-19-2018 01:26:56 PM -0700
06-18-2018 11:55:00 AM -0700
06-17-2018 08:12:25 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Notes from Atlantis

Start with the show’s host, art historian Sir Kenneth Clark (1903-1983). In a 2008 post at the Corner, while stating the Clark should be in the top ten list of the “greatest educators of the last 50 years,” John Derbyshire rather acidly described his appearance as a Mike Myers caricature of a courtly English gentleman:

Not the least of the charms of the thing is Clark (he was later knighted, to become Sir Kenneth) himself. He is, as Bertie Wooster would have said, an odd-looking bird:  an unnaturally fleshy, perhaps goiterous, neck, a squint, Austin Powers teeth, and the sort of exquisitely shabby and ill-fitting menswear that you can only get from terrifically exclusive and expensive London tailors. He is the master of his material, though — talk about effortless superiority! You should watch Civilisation, if you haven’t. More important, you should have your kids watch it.

(I’ll grant Clark the unfortunate dentition that Derb mentions, but Clark, at least as he appears in Civilisation, is one sharp dresser. I’d like to meet his tailor, to coin a phrase.)

Jerry Springer recently claimed that "I am the father of the destruction of Western civilization." I think that's going a bit too far -- Jerry's merely the Pied Piper of its destruction. (Though I'd add Howard Stern and Morton Downey, Jr. to the broadcasting troika from Hell.) But decades ago, Clark was both attempting to keep Civilization alive, and define what the word meant. The title of the series alone would probably prevent it from being made, given the leftist elite's multicultural construct. And even if it were to run that gauntlet, can anyone imagine a British series in 2013 opening with the following statement?

The first episode in the series begins with Clark asking, “What is civilization?”—and answering, straight-out: “I don’t know. I can’t define it in abstract terms yet. But I think I can recognize it when I see it.” He then turns to the Notre Dame cathedral in the background and states, “I’m looking at it now.”

And then note the show’s final episode, embedded below. It includes shots of the Concorde -- another relic from a bygone civilization -- while still on the assembly line. But despite the show’s emphasis on art and aesthetics as benchmarks for civilization's progress, Clark doesn’t comment on the then-new Corbusier-inspired appalling brutalist concrete architecture built by the University of East Anglia. (The "hide the decline" institution currently involved in freeze-drying and turning the clock back on man's progress.) His silence unintentionally spotlights how post-WWI-era modernism (to echo Sarah Hoyt’s essay) was simply the law of the land, making the final episode of the show a sort of Whig History story of modernism’s inevitable ascension. Or as Joseph Pearce wrote last year for the Catholic-themed Crisis Magazine:

The truth is that Clark is a decidedly modern man who sees history and civilisation through the superciliously defective lens of post-“enlightened”, i.e. disenchanted, culture. Although not quite Eliot’s “hollow man” or Waugh’s “Hooper”, his vision is sullied by the sundering of reason from faith and feeling. For all his love of the Renaissance, he is a child of the enlightenment and is the slave of that particularly pernicious zeitgeist.

That seems awfully harsh, especially considering that the decidedly modern men of the post-WWII era certainly were much more complete men than their successors. Not to mention, much more optimistic about the civilization they inherited. And with WWII still fresh in their minds, with the Cold War then still raging, rather more aware of how fragile it was. Clark concludes the series with some seemingly simple advice that now seems remarkably prescient from our vantage point in 2013:

I said at the beginning that it is a lack of confidence, more than anything else that kills a civilization.  We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.

I doubt Clark had any idea what was already breaking, on both sides of the Atlantic, a trend that would only accelerate.

Related: At the Tatler, Bryan Preston notes that PC now produces a rather different kind of history of civilization: "Recasting History: Scholarly Study Finds that Race, Class, and Gender Studies Crowd Up University American History Classes."

(Bumped to top.)