Talk:Kenneth Clark

KCB @ age 35?

Fact-check please: Can he possiblly have been made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 1938? Ferg2k 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Romantic Rebellion

This is listed as one of Clark's publications, but in fact the book went with a TV series which was, in my opinion, even better than Civilisation. Where the earlier program was very broad-brush, the later one focussed on a number of artists of the Romantic period, David, Delacroix, Turner, etc., and went into both the lives and works in great detail. The show wasn't as big a hit as Civilisation, but showed Clark I think at his professional best, that is, as a critic and aesthetician, as both informed admirer and curator of European art. I don't have enough details to contribute to writing such a section myself, but think it important to note in a biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonemacduff (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Subliminal parochialism or obscurfication of the facts

The sentence

"When it was broadcast on PBS in 1969, Civilisation was a hit on both sides of the Atlantic, catapulting Sir Kenneth to international fame."

could benefit through some addtional facts to help the the reader appreciate that this was first presented on the BBC in 1969 (twice actually) and was a hit in the UK and that citing PBS is taking a US perspective of its fame.

- Changed

It's a small thing, but I'd like to applaud this anonymous editor. He altered "when it was broadcast on PBS" to "also broadcast on PBS", which very deftly and subtly removed the implication that countries other than North America are insignificant, without an excessive amount of editing. Well done that man. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Admirers

Is there any evidence that most of his admirers are from a Classical Liberal or Objectivist/Randian political standpoint, or even that Ayn Rand liked him? Without having the results of any opinion polls, his belief in tradition, authority, and culture seem to place him more as a traditional Conservative with some elements of the liberal humanist. Certainly, I don't see any evidence of a hyper-rationalist or objectivist Randian strain to his views; in contrast, he edited a collection of writings by the Victorian socialist John Ruskin (in bibliography). This sounds like a disciple of Ayn Rand trying to claim a famous forebear without proof.

The Objectivist reference does seem particularly unfounded. Also, "anti-elitist"? Really now?! I have no idea who wrote that paragraph, but it doesn't seem like an accurate description at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.227.24 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

References to "Sir Kenneth"

I'd like to replace all "Sir Kenneth" by "Clark", if there is no objection. After all, this was a temporary title...John Wheater 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Towards the end he was correctly refered to as Lord Clark. It's more knowledgeable to refer to him by his contemporary style, changing it as the chronology unrolls. --Wetman (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Degree subject

"Clark was educated at Winchester College and Trinity College, Oxford, where he studied the history of art" - no doubt, but surely not formally? History of art was not a subject taught at either establishment until much later. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hostile to postmodernism?

This comment should be deleted as anachronistic. Postmodernism didn't exist in 1969, so there's no sense in which Clark could be hostile to it, and certainly not extremely hostile. The writer has also selectively quoted from what Clark said in program 13 of Civilization, and omitted some of the quotation which would put it in a different light. The general tenor of Clark's remarks about "today's" students was positive, though somewhat bemused. What struck me on re-viewing the program was how un-dogmatic his remarks were, in contrast to this writer, who seems determined to do a nice juicy bit of character assassination. 24.81.25.127 (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

political affiliation in the Lords

Was he a Tory Peer or a crossbencher or what? I assume there is a Peers category he should be in either way? --LeedsKing (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Need ref for conversion to Catholicism claim.

I can not find any references that back up the claim he converted to Catholicism in the final days of his life. I found a book on grave sites[1] that says he was buried in the Saltwood churchyard of Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's. Their website[2] indicates that they have communion using the Book of Common prayer, indicating that they are either Anglican or a Protestant dissenter group flowing from that denomination. It would be odd for a Catholic convert to be buried in a Protestant graveyard. While it does not appear that Catholic canon law outlaws such a burial, it does HIGHLY recommend Catholics be buried in Catholic graveyards[3] to insure burial practices are done in accord with the will of the Church. One would suspect that a convert would be especially sensitive to following the recommendations of his new faith.

I will continue to look for any trustworthy ref that backs up the claim that he converted to Catholicism. Until such a ref is found I am removing the claim from the article. Wowaconia (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Kenneth Clark, Baron Clark → Kenneth Clark – Recently, the article was moved to the long name without prior discussion. I propose to revert the change, referring to the escape clause in WP:NCPEER: "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names". Clark was primarily notable as an art historian, in particular because of the television series Civilisation. Doing a Google Book search for "Kenneth Clark" + Civilisation gives 34,400 hits, while "Baron Clark" + civilisation gives 248 hits and "Lord Clark" + Civilisation 2,440 hits. Dropping "Civilisation" from the queries gives similar results, though there are false positives for "Kenneth Clark", in particular hits for the American psychologist. Favonian (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely right. The editor has been doing a lot of these moves, & I think others will be wrong too. He always published as "Kenneth" too. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. His obit in the Washington Post gives him as "Kenneth Clark" on first mention, "Lord Clark" on subsequent reference. His AP obit also gives him as "Kenneth Clark" on first mention, but just plain "Clark" on subsequent reference. Neither of these stories describe him as a "baron". In fact, very few accounts do, other than the ones from 1969 about his baronation, or whatever that event might be called. Up with common name, down with WP:NCROY. Cf. Margaret Thatcher Kauffner (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)