Airing Mondays at 9 on PBS (check your local listings). Official Site

Columbia University professor Simon Schama takes a different artist each episode and focuses on the story behind one of their masterpieces. He will cover eight in all: Van Gogh's "Wheatfield with Crows," Picasso's "Guernica," Caravaggio's "David with Head of Goliath," Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St. Theresa," Rembrandt's "The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis," David's "The Death of Marat," Turner's "Slave Ship," and Rothko's Seagram Building Murals. He uses dramatic re-enactments, location shooting, and photography of the paintings themselves to help illustrate the artists' journeys.

NY Times review: Matching Masterpieces With History’s Flash Points

LA Times review: PBS goes museum-hopping

Hollywood Reporter: A mindful cruise into the imaginations of some of the world's best-known artists


I missed the first two back-to-back episodes last week, which were Van Gogh and Picasso, but I remembered to watch Caravaggio this week. I wasn't sure what to expect; I don't usually like dramatic re-enactments but I love art history. It was fairly entertaining. I didn't know much about Caravaggio's life so it was interesting to learn more about him. I liked the location shots and of course the art itself. The re-enactments were overly dramatic but bearable. Schama also tended to impose his own imagined thoughts and motivations into the mind and character of the artist, which was sometimes annoying. But I suppose it adds to the storytelling aspect of the series. I am looking forward to the other artists' episodes, particulary Rothko, who is a favorite of mine.

I've got the Caravaggio one on my TiVo, and will watch it sometime this week. The Van Gogh and Picasso ones were pretty good -- though I liked the Picasso one more myself. It wasn't as familiar as the Van Gogh story.

I'm really enjoying these. Even though I love museums, and they are generally the high points of my various travels, I have very little practical knowledge about art. I'm a bit more educated than "I may not know much, but I know what I like," but the real nuts and bolts about art history, etc., are unfamiliar to me. It's nice to get a more in-depth explanation, told in an accessible fashion.

I wasn't too sure about the dramatizations, since I generally don't care for them in non-fiction shows, but these are working pretty well for me. I especially liked Andy Sirkis' portrayal of Van Gogh.

I've seen the first three, and am mightily impressed.

Van Gogh: Loved the way he pronounced his name the European way (Goch) and not the American way (Go). Vincent's life-story always makes me sad, and this telling made me even more weepy. His paintings were presented beautifully, and I loved the close-ups of the details. But that bit about eating paint, right out of the tube? Grossed me out, but what an insight into how Vincent felt about paint.

Picasso: Schama simply does not like Picasso at all! He gives Pablo credit for Guernica, but, if not for that, he'd dismiss him almost completely. I can understand this counter-reaction to the art historians' oh-so-prevalent Picasso-worship, but I wish Schama had given Picasso more credit. True, Picasso post-WWII did next to nothing worthwhile -- but his early stuff? Revolutionary -- which Schama does admit, in describing Picasso's dismemberment of three great tenets of art: History, Beauty, and Resemblance.

Caravaggio: They never taught us this in art history class! All we got was "Master of Light" and "... troubled ...". Troubled?! The man was psycho! But he was as much a revolutionary in the art world of his time as Picasso was in his own time. His depiction of the Assumption of Mary, showing her as a dead body? Yes, you can see the power of the moment, but you can also see why the church leaders who commisioned the painting rejected it.

I'm really looking forward to next week's episode on Bernini.

I just watch the Van Gogh episode again and I guess I didn't realize it was Andy Serkis at first. I really did like his portrayal, but the man certainly has creepy eyes.

I love that Schama also pointed out that it wasn't the entire ear that he cut off. I adore Van Gogh and my friends all call him "that weirdo who cut off his ear" and I always roll my eyes and say "not the whole ear. Just a nibble of his ear"

I watched the Bernini episode last night. Wow, the photography of the the sculptures was simply gorgeous. It was like the camera was caressing every curve. They really captured the sensuality of his works. It made me want to hop on a plane to Rome right away! And great stories about his rivalries with his brother (romantic) and with Borromini (professional).

I definitely agree on the photography aspect, sweetjane. I've seen some of the works and artists that have been mentioned so far, but wish I could see them again with this new information in the background. Most of the references/art history bits that I've seen never get as deep into the ... psychology of the piece and the artist. Schama takes even the familiar pieces and brings new light to them.

But then I loved the history of Britain thing he did a few years ago, the first time I encountered him, and fell for his style at that time.

Sweetjane, if you do go to Rome, be sure to check out the Bernini's baptismal font with the cherubs. When you see them from a distance, they look darling and sweet, but when you get up to them, they are massive. When I was there, 25 years ago, you could get close enough to touch them. Each feather looks like it is about to flutter.

I saw them when I was sixteen and was no expert on art. Still, I was struck by them, and spent a great deal of time looking at them.

Sadly, one work of art that does not translate well to film is the Mona Lisa. We've all seen the iconic photos of it, but they don't begin to do justice to that face. When you see her in person, it looks as if you've just caught her eye and the beginnings of that smile are because she's just spotted you through the crowd that is always around her - she's being politely attentive to those people but can barely wait until you get over to burst out laughing and hug you. I've never seen a picture with so much personality.

I was totally unprepared for that reaction. I knew it was a famous picture by a famous artist – blah, blah, blah – but I never expected such a personal connection.

Last night was one on Rembrandt. I wasn't as impressed as I was with the other shows, but I did go away with more of an idea of the business of being an artist. And I wished Schama had gone into a bit more on why Rembrandt made his choice of subjects. I mean, a painting of a slaughtered ox?

Next week: David! And Schama promos right off the bat that he doesn't like the guy. It should be fun.

I found the Rembrandt episode a little dry compared to the previous two, but I'm looking forward to David next week. There should be a lot more background drama for Schama to sink into.

TFTinUSA, unfortunately a trip to Rome isn't in my near future, but thanks for the rec. The only time I've been was about 10 years ago and it was for only around 3 1/2 days. I remember walking around and taking in a lot of the architecture but it wasn't nearly enough time to experience everything, and I probably wasn't aware of all of Bernini's sculptures. The location shots in this series just make me want to go traveling so badly.

I agree that the Rembrandt episode wasn't as compelling as Bernini or Caravaggio, but I still got a lot out of it. For one, I never knew of that mutilated work that Schama considers his masterpiece. (I'd always heard it's the Night Watch.) And even though there was more than 200 years between them -- and it was never mentioned in the Rembrandt episode -- I could begin to see a line that would stretch from Rembrandt's latter works, through the impressionists and to Van Gogh with this choice of subjects and rougher technique.

I think that when I heard that they were doing Rembrandt, I just assumed they would cover The Night Watch. I don't remember hearing about this painting. I remember my art history teacher practically orgasming over The Night Watch, we spent an entire week staring at it and hearing about how it had been cut to fit, the ongoing saga of how it should be lit, hidden from the Nazis, defaced by various crazies. Count me in as another who didn't find this one to be as compelling at the other episodes. Maybe it was the lack of murder and violence in the backstory?



Totally. I almost wish they had commented on that. If they did, I missed it.

I really love this series. I wonder if he will do another run of it with different artists. Simon Schama always facinates me, I love the way he presents things. I have a bit of a crush on him I must say. My parents bought me the entire "History of Britain" series because I loved it so much.

Wow! I thought Schama was being tough on the artists so far, but, he really cannot stand Louis David! I think part of that overreaction on Schama's are the good things about David: David was very accomplished technically, and David's style was a stark challenge to his mentor Boucher's froo-froo Rococco style. But Schama simply cannot stand that David turns art into propaganada

Much of this episode was a primer on the French Revolution. Noisy revolutionary committees convening, in all places, on an indoor tennis court; Marat as an evil scab-covered monster spewing bile, hatred, and lies; Robespierre as a fop standing alone and above the mob; guillotines everywhere. Well, OK -- it's a primer from the English point of view.

And David's switch to Napoleon worship? One interesting fact that Schama failed to mention is that David had signed the death warrant during the Revolution of a minor count -- and this count's widow became Napoleon's wife, Josephine. Did David feel a bit guilty? Nah, I doubt it.

I wish there had been a bit more on the last part of his life in Brussels. And maybe a tiny mention that some people do like David's style, and that propaganda has always been one of the uses of art.

Whoa. Good art.

I'm absolutely in love with this show, and now I've gotten my mother addicted too. Funny fact: My mother, who grew up in Communist Poland, apparently knew next to nothing about the French revolution. As she put it, "I don't think they wanted us learning about the proletariat rising up and overthrowing despotic regimes." (You'd think it'd be the other way around...)

I had no idea David painted Napoleon as well. I got the impression that ultimately, he was drawn to raw power, and that if he was alive today, he'd be painting George W. Bush swaggering on the deck of an aircraft carrier, with the giant "Mission Accomplished" banner looming in the background. Schama's disdain was palpable, but I think part of his extreme distaste for David was that the guy didn't just paint propaganda, he painted propaganda that supported the deaths of tens of thousands of people. That said, I'm absolutely mesmerized by David's works. And like Schama, I kinda hate myself for it.

I researched more on David after the show...another interesting fact that was glossed over. David's estranged wife was the one that got him out of prison, and maybe not surprisingly, they got back together afterwards. The painting that was briefly shown on the show, the one where the Sabine women stopped the fighting, it's seen as a call to moderation after years of bloodshed, but it's also seen as being inspired by his wife.

Having just visited the National Women in the Arts museum in DC, might I suggest two more artists for future shows:

* Artemisia Gentileschi
* Frida Kahlo

I actually know a lot more about Gentileschi than about Kahlo (I love my Baroque art, what can I say?), but both women had fascinating lives and mesmerizing paintings.

Schama's apparent dislike of David (and Marat) was almost more fascinating than David himself. And he really overdid the whole blood imagery. Still, another enjoyable show, and great views of the paintings.

I also hope he does another run with different artists. There is endless source material for him to work with. This has become the show I most look forward to seeing all week, and it's a shame that he'll be covering only 8 artists.

The Late Night TV Page says that Simon Schama will be on The Colbert Report next Monday, July 23, for those with cable.

I finally caught my TiVo'd copy of the David episode.

I can see where Schama's coming from, though it was heavy handed compared to other episodes, since with David it's the angle of the corruption of art, much like Leni Reifenstahl's filmmaking skills were used to glorify Hitler. (See "Triumph of the Will" sometime. Absolutely gorgeous and absolutely terrifying at the same time.) David used his skills to deflect from real atrocities.

In a way, the David episode is the mirror image of the one featuring Picasso's Guernica. In that one, Picasso used art to shine a spotlight on evil, while David used art to glorify the merchants of death.

And next week is Turner. At first, I thought, oh, no, boring pastoral English landscapes. But then I remembered his wild coastal/seascapes that look they were painted by a madman, and now I'm looking forward (again) to this show.

The piano music over the opening series graphics...is that Benthoven? Chopin? Neither? There was nothing in the credits. Anyone know the name of the composition?

The thing I love the most about this series is how it makes the familiar paintings utterly strange and mysterious. It helps that they show us details in the artwork themselves that we would never catch in published reproductions or, for that matter, in person.

TimeMachine, it's Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata."

Now I see what Schama has been doing. He gets us interested with sure-draws like Van Gogh, Rembrandt and Caravaggio. Then he swoops in for the kill on David, and on up with the ultimate praise for Turner. "Slave Ship" is the Best 19th Century British painting? A bit of bombast there, but Turner does seem like a painter born a century too early. I wish there had been a bit more on Turner's personal life and how it affected his art. True, we heard about his mother and Bedlam, about his never having been married (but how he did keep a mistress around the corner), about his secret erotic drawings -- but still, I don't feel I now know the man.

Next week: Rothko? I have no idea what to expect from Schama on this one.

Did anyone else have a hard time seeing what was going on in those Turner paintings? The filming that they have done so far shows the details so beautifully but I felt like I couldn't see what was going on in the Turner paintings. Of course, I always thought that Turner's paintings were kind of dull, so maybe it was just me.

And I too have no idea what to expect from a show on Rothko. I don't really get Rothko, no matter how hard my art history teacher tried.

I found the photography for the Turner paintings to be just as stunning as the rest of the series, but I do think that maybe at times they zoomed in a little too close to a detail without putting it in the context of the whole painting so it may have been difficult to tell what we were supposed to be looking at. They could have done more slow panning shots.

I like Turner's paintings but didn't know much about his personal life. It was interesting that he used his fingers, fingernails, and a pumice stone when painting. I also enjoyed the location shots on this one, but it helps that they went to a couple of favorite places I've visited, Venice and the Yorkshire Moors. Again with the making me want to travel.

I can't believe there is only one more episode. I really hope he does more.

Awww, I wish I had realized this show was on the air earlier. At least the Turner episode is being repeated.

There is just too much TV out there.

I am actually a big Rothko fan (I remember spending hours at the last Whitney retrospective, and have visited the Rothko Chapel in Houston) but I thought that was a strange episode. The whole first half hour I don't think they even showed any art. What was up with showing Schama in his kitchen chopping up vegetables and making chicken soup? At the beginning, was that supposed to be Schama as a young man in 1970? And why did they have to keep showing that "saber-wielding Cossack"? I just thought it was bizarre.

It's also very hard to capture a Rothko with film - nothing compares to seeing the real thing.

I'd never heard of Rothko before. I hope you're right sweetjane that more shows upon personal viewing, because I could not see how he was getting all that exegesis from a painting that was two rough lines of color. "It's a journey to another world, a world where you can see mankind as it really is, a journey to a world you've never been to or imagined." Wha? Two rough lines of color and you get that? What kind of acid did you drop before visiting, Schama?

I never got "tragedy" and "doom" from a Rothko painting -- well, ok, those pure black ones in that chapel, I'll admit, they are a bit dismal. But Rothko's work has always soothed me -- full of power and intensity, yes, but, ultimately, relaxing. Rothko has taken what is a essentially a beginning exercise for graphic designers on color and refined it, especially with his rough definition of edges, into strong paintings. I don't see why Schama insists on interpreting the works in three-dimensions -- to me, Rothko's stuff is the essence of two-dimensions, because, after all, that's what a painting is. Perspective and illusion are lies, Rothko is saying. And I'm always fascinated by the feeling of blocked light you get in a Rothko.

I'd never seen his Subway paintings before, and I really liked them.

I did enjoy Rothko's own words on the process of art. I'm assuming anytime one of the portrayers of an artist speaks in these episodes, we're hearing the real words of that artist -- but maybe I'm wrong, and Schama is taking license there.

And I loved the 1970's Schama. I can just imagine the casting calls and auditions for that part:
"No, we need someone a little shaggier."
"How does he look in paisley bell bottoms?"
"Could he look a bit more bemused? And thunder-struck too?"

I found this segment (Rothko) the most interesting so far. I have to admit that I just don't "get" Rothko; I've seen a lot of his work in various museums (including a recent installation at the National Gallery in D.C.), but just couldn't get beyond the "big blocks of color--so what?" thoughts. I'm usually immediately drawn to non-representational forms of art, but Rothko has always been the big exception. (I did like the early subway paintings of his they showed; I'd like to see those in person.)

I thought that this segment did a pretty good job of trying to get into Rothko's mindset, pulling in memories from the Russian pograms (that's what the Cossack represented), through the Depression, and then through WWII and the Holocaust. I'd actually like to get a chance to see another Rothko installation, with this new insight into his thoughts in mind.

It must be difficult to do an episode on an artist like this. In all of the other artists portrayed, you could start with the art, and tease the artist's inspiration and purpose from what's represented in the art. With Rothko, you have to start with what's in the artist's mind, and hope that the viewer will be able to see that when you then show them the art. I hope that makes some sense; not being more than an "amateur viewer" when it comes to art, I'm finding it hard to express my thoughts properly.

Sweetjane, the young male at the beginning was supposed to be Schama in 1970 (the actor is credited at the end). I think the scene with Schama cooking was supposed to represent the closeness he felt to Rothko, due to similar chilhood backgrounds. However, I'm not familiar enough with Schama's early life to do more than speculate on that point.

I found this a very moving episode - in fact, the ending moved me to sniffles. Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that it was the last show in the series. I certainly hope he does more - imagine what he could do with Degas, or Manet, or Ingres, or Whistler... Why, yes, those are some of my favorite artists, why do you ask?

What I know about Schama's childhood is that he grew up in Britain as the child of Jewish refugees from Holland. (I'm using "refugees" advisedly. Normally I'd just say "immigrants" because they did better than getting out by the skin of their teeth, but then they were Jewish and Hitler was Hitler so it wasn't like they had a real choice in moving.) I think the point he was trying to get at was that he and Rothko had similar formative experiences, especially Jewish formative experiences--hence the "Jewish mother" chicken soup.

But Rothko just doesn't translate on screen, especially to a small TV. I see what you're saying about the two-dimensionality of Rothko's work, meknownothing, but what I find fascinating about his work is how much depth and movement he can give using just flat paint on a flat surface. You have to be at a certain physical distance from the real thing to get that, for the blends of colors that he used to literally vibrate, and the distortions of cameras and pixels and screens takes it all away.

I've got to say that I'm one of those people who typically doesn't "get" Rothko, though the one time I saw one of his canvasses in person, it translated far better than it does in just a still photo.

I certainly give Simon Schama full credit for daring to translate some a difficult version of art. It's one thing to create an art and art history series that looks at Picasso, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Bernini -- easy to understand classics of the form. It's quite another to then present the viewer with someone as divisive as Rothko and to try and explain that "power" that modern art has. In a way, I wonder if the rest of the series wasn't all planned out as a way to lead up to this -- that Rothko wasn't in fact Schama's point all along, that art has power, even without conventional figures or a story.

And now I'm off to find what else of Schama's I can pick up at the library.

Rothko is definitely one of those artists that can play into the criticism of modern art (canvases of nothing but black paint). I think he's okay but I would've preferred a show on de Kooning.

I feel like an idiot asking this question, but I've searched and can't find this on my schedule, except in HD, which I don't have. Is that the case everywhere?

You can pick up HD on a regular TV. Federal law requires broadcasters to send out signals that can be picked up by HD and by regular sets until 2009. At which point regular sets will require a converter. (Unless you're talking only about a digital only channel on a cable package, but the Simon Schama series has been broadcast on regular old PBS.)

I absoulutely love this show. It's too bad it's over. This was something I could watch every week.

That being said, I completely did not get Rothko. It seems this was an artist who should not have been compacted onto the small screen. While watching it, I kept saying, "Well, maybe if I saw it in person." And this "red cube" represents? Well everything in the world according to Mr. Schama. I just couldn't see myself sitting on one of those large benches in front of his paintings for hours. But that's just me.

I intend to buy the DVD set when it is released. This is probably as close to art school as one can get.

It's available now on the PBS site.

Just wanted to let anyone who was interested in the DVD know that Amazon has it for a substantially discounted price (30% off suggested retail).

Mmm, I loved this series. Caravaggio and Bernini (no idea he was kind of a douche!) were my favorites, but it was interesting learning more about artists like David and Rothko, of whom I had limited knowledge. I wish Schama would do another series... I'm a little surprised he didn't touch on the Impressionists at all (Manet, anyone?).