sun 09/08/2020

The Impressionists: Painting and Revolution, BBC Two | reviews, news & interviews

The Impressionists: Painting and Revolution, BBC Two

The Impressionists: Painting and Revolution, BBC Two

The artists who broke the mould, only to be later dismissed as 'chocolate box'

Januszczak is fantastic at fleshing out little-known biographical and contextual details

Who could argue that television isn’t a great medium for learning about art? In its pared-down, visually literate way it delivers what dull, theory-laden extrapolations often can’t (if only because artists don’t think that way when they make things, and we don’t think that way when we look at things). It can breathe renewed life and vigour into a subject we think we know well, and, as a medium for simplified, pocket-sized information, it can get straight to the heart of a matter. Perfect. Possibly. And so we come to The Impressionists: Painting and Revolution.


This is a great review about the BBC programme ; I will agree, those pins are scary !..,but the presenter's personality is so colorful, we will remember those bios...,

I'm sorry to say that WJ's gimmick-strewn presentation in this series has already bored and palled and I fell asleep in the second part tonight as there's actually not much of interest being said to keep my attention. Kenneth Clark, John Berger, Huw Wheldon, knew how to make a programme on art, to talk wisely and interestingly and to keep your attention, and WJ is just another of those third-rate journalists who believe their 'take' on the history of art needs their unattractive 'mug' in close-up dominating the programme and not the art itself. When I was still awake I kept hoping WJ would slip on those cliff tops and spare everyone more of his curdled and potted oik-ish presentation.

In last Saturday's program WJ whose 'in you face' presentation is irritating at the best of times, suggested that Monet, whist painting steam engines was in danger of suffocation from all the smoke. Can someone please inform Mr Januszczak that steam engines produce steam not smoke, which is unlikely to have caused Monet any serious problems.

Tim's attempt at archness reveals more about his enthusiasm to have a swipe at "WJ" ( whom he is entitled not to like, I suppose, though he doesn't need to tell us all about it - why would we be interested in what Tim thinks?) I am interested, however in in helping poor Tim hone his next jibe a little more carefully: how does he think those steam engines produce all that heat to produce all that smoke? Has he ever been near a steam engine? Does he know they burn coal? Or does he think that sensitive artistic souls like himself are exempt from the need to be scietifically accurate?

Brilliant again, the commentary so concise helpful and beautifully spoken. One small quibble though; the meaning was unclear, or opposite to that intended when the presenter used the phrase 'as was his want'. I presume he meant 'as was his wont'. Far from wanting or lacking, the artist in question was doing what he was accustomed to doing.. Sports commentators are fond of this expression, so it is surprising that anyone gets confused by the difference in the spelling, pronunciation and meaning of these two words; 'want' and 'wont'

his suggestion that the woman holding a parasol in the painting by caillebotte of le pont de l'europe is a prostitute is not the opinion of us all something I would like to know is the name of the french singer and her song from last weeks programme

to Mr. W. Januszczak: Still you hold the secret of impressionists unrevealed. Is that intentionally?

Add comment


Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters