Ö÷²¥´óÐã

I like Collings's style. I like the way he brings the then into the now. The title of the programme, and the title sequence, does that.

> We must never forget that these images which we are now accustomed to seeing in grand museums were once blank canvases and pieces of wood in a young artist's studio.

A very good point, and an inspiration.

I notice people complaining about background music in documentaries, but I don't find it a problem, and in fact I enjoyed it here. My favourite sequence is from the second programme when the picture radiates out in a burst of brilliant white light to the theme of Tales of Brave Ulysses by Creme. Whoah! What the hell is that?! Indeed.

Oh dear. Yet another potentially good program ruined. Three complaints, sadly applicable to much of current Ö÷²¥´óÐã output:

1. Presenters of programs which are trying to show the viewers something should be heard but not seen. If I invited Mr Collings to come into an art gallery to look at a picture, and then proceeded to stand in front of him for much of the time, and make him watch video coverage of me walking along, or of the side of my head, he would rightly be annoyed. So was I.

2. Will somebody protect us from the silly producers' fad of using false present tenses when describing past events? It is a silly idea usually made worse by the fact that nobody can keep it up for long! At one point Mr Collings said "Holland is effectively ruled by Spain". I thought that he was referring to some recent underhand manipulation in the EU headquarters until I realised that what he meant was "Holland WAS effectively ruled by Spain". It's a simple little word "was". It means just what it says. I wonder why the Ö÷²¥´óÐã hate using it so much?

3. If you want me to listen to you, would you mind asking the band to stop playing while you speak?

Excellent series, I found the whole thing fascinating and I learnt a great deal as well as being entertained. The ideas of the time and description of this period really transported me into the lives of these artists and their beliefs. I really enjoyed the music, just wish I knew what the tracks were? A big plus was the series captivated my teenage daughter and appealed to her modern ideas, which I thought very interesting, she just couldn't believe that the The Garden of Earthly Delights was painted five hundred years ago!

Thanks, I enjoyed watching all the programmes in the series, as I did "What is Beauty?" More, please! From the introduction, though, I had expected to see rather more about the technicalities of painting. It was really only the last programme, I think, that covered this to a greater extent.

I didn't recognise more than a few of the pieces of music, and I too would like to know what they were.

In the titles at the end of the last programme we got to see (just) who did the title music. Had I been still reflecting on the programme, I might have wondered about the technicalities of TV production and people like the dubbing mixer and colourist. I wasn't, though, because I knew what was coming: squeezing down the credits, preceded by an incompetent little hop and skip back of a frame. No cutting edge graphic techniques here.

I suppose I could ignore a voice announcement about an upcoming programme, but squeezing the credits has marred my enjoyment of many programmes over the last few years, where otherwise my thoughts might have lingered during the few moments of the credits playing. For me now the moment has gone as soon as the credits start, because of the *expectation* that they'll be squeezed, even if (as after the second programme) they're not. This is all the more annoying because the vast majority of my viewing is timeshifted, and I suspect this is the same for an increasing number of people.

Flame off. Thanks again for a great series.

I've only seen the first programme, about Raphael's sublime 'Madonna del prato': it was a fantastic visual treat - well done everyone. I look forward to the third, which I've recorded. I've always hoped for help in appreciating composition and this programme did that better than any other I've seen, as it did for colour and other technical aspects. The rostrum work was excellent. I'm sure it was even better in HD. Yes, Collings did cross our line of sight a bit too often (one sequence was almost self-parody) but I'll trade that for his enthusiasm and commitment.
BUT - and I'm trying to be polite here - the music was dreadful. I don't know where to start but how about this: just as Flemish painting influenced Italy at this time, so did Flemish music, yet a golden opportunity to explore this striking parallel was wasted. The result did 'interfere with the visual qualities of the original paintings', because, as Collings explained, such pictures were part of a unified aesthetic embracing philosophy, architecture, and music (proportion, for instance, was thought of as common to all the arts): here, this was wilfully violated. The dissonances between vision and sound gave me several nasty turns. And, yes, it was TOO LOUD.
Sound levels apart, the choice of music was only an extreme manifestation of television's taboo against 'classical' music. Just as, in your own words, 'paintings which we now regard as part of the classic canon of Western art were the modern art of their own time', so the music of Renaissance Italy was also modern music. But by not using *any* music of Raphael's time, the programme ensured that nobody unfamiliar with it was exposed to it or might - perish the thought - find the same beauty in it as in the picture, and that it remains forgotten, specialist and obscure, the province of sad, bad 'traditionalists' (I'll forebear to comment on that low rhetorical blow).
You say it's 'part of our job in the Ö÷²¥´óÐã arts department to be constantly challenging ourselves and our audience to find new ways of seeing art on TV.' Playing pop, jazz, ambient industrial and whatever else alongside the 'Madonna del prato' is *not* 'pushing the boundaries' or 'challenging ourselves'; it's pandering to popular misconceptions about the past (all 'classical' music is 'boring' and 'old'). How about this for an idea? When the series is repeated, put it out, just *once* (late at night, if you have to), with NO music on the soundtrack...

L.S.,

I'd like to contact Matthew Collings regarding present day art that is embedded in the ideas, visions and artistic expressions that underly the Renaissance Revolution. How do I proceed?

I'd appreciate it if someone could contact me and help me out. I've refrained from posting my e-mail address on this blog, hoping that someone from the Ö÷²¥´óÐã or the production team of the programme will contact me directly.

Best regards.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I absolutely loved this programme (which I have only just watched). In particular I liked very much the pedantic style of Mathew Collings. He told us what he was going to tell us, and then he told us. I like being told stuff and I learnt a lot about Pierro della Franseca from watching and listening to Mathew. Unfortunately I missed the first programme but wait eagerly for the next. Well done everybody concerned. Oh, I should add that I liked the musical score accompanying this. Normally I absolutely hate having a musical accompaniment but this was just right.