"What could an intelligent, human, open minded man do in mid-16th century Europe? Keep quiet. Work in solitude. Outwardly conform, inwardly remain free."
2:08:43 “I fancy that Vermeer looked through a lens into a box with a piece of ground glass squared up and painted exactly what he saw.” Kenneth Clark coming up with the _camera obscura_ theory of Johannes Vermeer’s painting technique, around since the 19th century, decades before it was popularized by architect John Steadman in the early 21st century.
As a hun who dwelled among the yanks for 8 years, and now among the frogs for another 23, I absolutely LOVE the sophistication of Lord Clark's language and accent, uninterrupted by the slightest uncertainty. Of course, he's trying to shove the belief system of christianity and the catholic church down my throat (he was accepted into this institution on his deathbed I'm told). But as a scientist by training and by profession (no arrogance implied nor exercised) I think I know better, if far from fully, how thoughts are generated in our brain, and that without a brain and its constituent macromolecules, there ain't no thoughts, thus no prayers either, nor even the reception of the divine spirit. Simple as that. No cosmic meaning to our existence can be detected either. What's happening to the atoms that compose our body when the smoke of our bodies' combustion passes through the chimney is RE-INTEGRATION into other organic (or inorganic) matter, including gas molecules that can even escape this planet's atmosphere. I don't want to ruin anybody's day by saying so, and I certainly don't wish to proselytise anybody into following my argument. What satisfies me though, is that whatever reaction my dear reader might display, she will end up in smoke anyway, as we all will. Remember Peter Wessel Zapffe's list of humanity's three central strategies to cope with this realisation and life itself: isolation, anchoring, and distraction.
Regarding your materialist priors, I might encourage you to check out Bernardo Kastrup's books for potential falsification. He's someone with a very firm grounding in the hard sciences.
I'm really dubious of the statement that Art somehow is an accurate portrayal of life in any time or place. Most artists do what they feel. I suppose you could assume the artist is painting what he sees as is truth but certainty not post modern artists. If you were to say "look at this face, honest, so devout," I mean that is just skin deep. I would have to think that most "Art Historians" are maybe not artists themselves so all they see is what they want to see. Art mostly fantasy. Love it, admire it but it's no objective truth.
Oh this. Is nice ! Had this on dvd but haven’t seen in a while. Love how he plays the organ. Let’s get civilized!
Fantastic upload thank you
What a treat! Thank you for uploading this wonderful series!
Marvelous! You can even find Ian Richardson and young Patrick Stewart at the end of Part 6!
And the wonderful Ian Richardson.
Nice to watch again. This series was very formative to me
"What could an intelligent, human, open minded man do in mid-16th century Europe? Keep quiet. Work in solitude. Outwardly conform, inwardly remain free."
Same in 2024 Europe now :(
Thanks for uploading this.
2:08:43 “I fancy that Vermeer looked through a lens into a box with a piece of ground glass squared up and painted exactly what he saw.”
Kenneth Clark coming up with the _camera obscura_ theory of Johannes Vermeer’s painting technique, around since the 19th century, decades before it was popularized by architect John Steadman in the early 21st century.
Marvelous!
Genius
As a hun who dwelled among the yanks for 8 years, and now among the frogs for another 23, I absolutely LOVE the sophistication of Lord Clark's language and accent, uninterrupted by the slightest uncertainty. Of course, he's trying to shove the belief system of christianity and the catholic church down my throat (he was accepted into this institution on his deathbed I'm told). But as a scientist by training and by profession (no arrogance implied nor exercised) I think I know better, if far from fully, how thoughts are generated in our brain, and that without a brain and its constituent macromolecules, there ain't no thoughts, thus no prayers either, nor even the reception of the divine spirit. Simple as that. No cosmic meaning to our existence can be detected either. What's happening to the atoms that compose our body when the smoke of our bodies' combustion passes through the chimney is RE-INTEGRATION into other organic (or inorganic) matter, including gas molecules that can even escape this planet's atmosphere. I don't want to ruin anybody's day by saying so, and I certainly don't wish to proselytise anybody into following my argument. What satisfies me though, is that whatever reaction my dear reader might display, she will end up in smoke anyway, as we all will. Remember Peter Wessel Zapffe's list of humanity's three central strategies to cope with this realisation and life itself: isolation, anchoring, and distraction.
Regarding your materialist priors, I might encourage you to check out Bernardo Kastrup's books for potential falsification. He's someone with a very firm grounding in the hard sciences.
Does anybody know what the song is around the 1:32:00 mark? much appreciated
Set your VPN to Taiwan if you wanna watch this one
I'm really dubious of the statement that Art somehow is an accurate portrayal of life in any time or place. Most artists do what they feel. I suppose you could assume the artist is painting what he sees as is truth but certainty not post modern artists. If you were to say "look at this face, honest, so devout," I mean that is just skin deep. I would have to think that most "Art Historians" are maybe not artists themselves so all they see is what they want to see. Art mostly fantasy. Love it, admire it but it's no objective truth.
You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not about accuracy but expression and what the context for that expression is, two entirely different things.