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)

This seems to indicate that he was Catholic at the time of the Civilization series, unsure if it is authoritative enough to merit using it as a ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/nov/18/featuresreview.review3 --Wowaconia (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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. His books are sold under the name "Kenneth Clark", as you can see here, here, and here. Up with common name, down with WP:NCROY. Cf. Margaret Thatcher Kauffner (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Definitely the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paintings

A first rate article, Tim, and I'm enjoying it immensely. One point: In the National Gallery section, and perhaps beyond that, all paintings are named in inverts. I've taken a look at the articles, and they are italicised, such as Hadleigh Castle. Shouldn't these paintings be in italics? Cassianto^Talk 10:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cass! I am an ignoramus on the visual arts, and will be guided by anyone who knows the naming conventions for pictures. I'll have a look at the MoS shortly in search of guidance (Heaven help me!) Tim riley talk 20:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. I'm looking forward to the PR. Maybe our residing art expert could confirm things? Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The MoS, true to form, renders all aid short of actual help. I have looked at an FA on a painter (Van Gogh), taken my cue from there, and italicised the titles of paintings. Tim riley talk 16:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Article_titles, aka WP:VAMOS Tim. Yes, paintings should be normally capitalized, but there are a few exceptions among other types of work, with names rather than titles. Manuscripts for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, John. It seems an excellent rule, and as one of WP's leading authorities on the visual arts perhaps you could persuade the MoS gurus to be more explicit on this point. At present, unless I am overlooking something, the MoS says only that "For articles on individual works of art" (my italics) the italicisation rule applies. It would help if this convention was clearly extended to articles such as the present one, where titles of paintings are mentioned. Apologies all round if I've missed something. Tim riley talk 23:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Baron

The article does not explain how Clark became a Baron, or at least it is not obvious to an American reader. Can you please clarifyin the article, User:Tim riley or someone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It does say "life peerage, 1969;" in the Honours and awards section. Maybe that isn't enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, but it does not give any context, especially to an American reader. Why did he receive the honor? Was it expected/surprising/urged by someone? I think it should be mentioned in the chronological discussion of his life, probably in the Civilisation section. And even though the life peerage article says so, I think the text should note that the grant of the life peerage provides for non-hereditary Baronies, since "life peerage" is rather mysterious to many non-British readers. I think it is clear that some explanation, however brief, is needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of that is standard, and at the link. One doesn't see American bios explaining wierd local things like "registered Democrat". We don't even seem to have an article on that, beyond Voter_registration_in_the_United_States#Party_affiliation. I suppose the rest othe world is just supposed to know, which they certainly don't. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added a line to the lead about his many honours, including the K and the peerage, Tim riley talk 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Who?

"Clark surprised many in the arts and shocked some by accepting the chairmanship..." I added "in the arts". Am I correct? Can we clarify who is being referred to? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with this. Its not as if, say, family who knew him weren't surprised. etc Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, then can you help clear up the WP:WEASEL problem with the sentence? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be ok now. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Slade

Per the ref at the Oxford ref, he was Slade prof again in 1961. Worth mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Done as a footnote, but by all means move into the main text if you think it important enough. Tim riley talk 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Quibbles and suggestions

Nicely done. I have a few suggestions which you may or may not wish to take up. I have meantime upgraded the article to B - it's obviously worth more than a Start.

Lead

• "he was put in charge of" → "took charge of"?
  • I prefer my wording: "took charge" sounds like a coup d'état to me. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• "After the war..." etc. He went to ITA nine years after the war. Maybe a short sentence summarising what he was doing during those years would be useful. But see my comments below on the Postwar section
  • Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• The impression from the lead is that Clark's career finished with Civilisation. Is that a reasonable inference
  • Pretty much. He did some more TV work, and pro bono publico committee work, but nothing that I think needs to go in the lead. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Early years

• "as Clark put it" – better clarify which Clark you mean: "as his son put it"?
  • Indeed. Duly twuck. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Early career

• Concerning the Ashmolean. In the lead, Clark is "appointed" its director. Here in the text he "agreed to succeed" Bell, which sounds somewhat patrician for a 27-year-old. Just wondering if this is the best wording?
  • Point taken, but it really was rather like that if the biogs are right. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

National Gallery

• "Clark believed firmly..." Do we need the adverb?
  • Expunged. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• "listed by Piper": Needs full name on first mention
  • He's mentioned earlier and linked there. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• As you know, I'm not a fan of present-day value conversions, given the extent of socio-economic change in the last 80 years or so, but they can be indicative. £14,000 was an awful lot of money in 1937 (between £800,000 and £5 million today, according to MeasuringWorth's abstruse calculations). Even the lower figure is a notable amount of public money. Perhaps a footnote could be added, like I've done for Bush's measly £400 in 1950.
  • Point taken. I'll scout round for a suitable benchmark. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• I wonder if it's a good idea to add the unadorned fact that he was knighted, immediately after you've just detailed the main blot on his otherwise successful career. On the other hand, receiving a KCB at 35 is pretty remarkable and might be worth highlighting a little more.
  • I've no idea where that addition came from. It's covered in the honours section and I've removed it from this earlier pre-duplication. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wartime

• "...from careful monitoring of the collection discoveries were made that benefited its care and display when back in London after the war". A little cryptic - what sort of discoveries and what benefits?
  • Rejigged, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Postwar

• This section, which covers a period of nine years, could I think do with a little expansion. Three years at Oxford covers 1946 to 1949 - can we elaborate on his other activities - writing, researching, broadcasting? For example, ODNB has: "For a more popular audience, he became known as a broadcaster in such programmes as The Brains Trust", a fact you mention in the next section. I'd also keep to conventional chronology; his Arts Council involvement appears to have started before his professorship.
  • I'll see if I can unearth anything of note to add here. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Broadcasting - administrator, 1954–1957

• Who appointed Clark to the ITA chairmanship, and to whom was he responsible? Was it a full time appointment? I'd mention a little earlier than you do that it was for a 3-year term.
  • I'm afraid I can't answer the first two questions. HMG, in both cases, I imagine, but I don't know.

Broadcasting - ITV, 1957–1966

• "By the time of a 1960 programme about Picasso..." seems a bit awkwardly put. "By the time in 1960 when he presented a programme about Picasso..."?
  • Done. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Civilisation, 1966–1969

• No real quibbles with this section which admirable summarises a dedicated main article. I'd merely add, for information, how long each of the broadcast episodes was, and some original transmission dates for UK and US.
  • Good idea. Shall do. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Don't we say "Life peer" rather than "Baron for life"? I've never heard the latter form used.
  • Me neither. God knows where that came from. Now blitzed. The info is in the honours section. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Family and personal life

• Nothing to say, really, except the phrasing "lifelong supporter of the Labour Party" suggests a stronger commitment than I suspect he had. Did he ever make any political statement, or identify with any political cause (f which there were many during his most active years)? More of a champagne socialist, I suspect (glasshouses and stones loom in the background).
  • I am prepared to testify under oath that though I know you to be a socialist I have never seen you drink champagne. This can be rectified at the WA at some point.
    • Drank some on Tuesday (against doctor's orders) but you can only die once. Brianboulton (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BB. Quite like old times! Very helpful points, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 19:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, I've re-rated the article as B, and I've upgraded some of the importance levels to High, probably illegally but never mind. I can understand if you want to keep the article reviews informal, but I think it's at least worthy of Good Article status, if you can be bothered at some time, even if FAC is a hassle too far. If Bernie Levin can be a GA, surely Lord C deserves it! Brianboulton (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BB. I think perhaps it is of GA or conceivably of FA standard now, after all the excellent recent suggestions from so many kind colleagues, and if anyone is inspired to take the article to GA or beyond, he or she will have my unconditional blessing, but I am, to coin a phrase, buggered if I'm going to do it. I am about to sink happily back into retirement, though I shall of course run a critical eye over your AB article before I vanish. Tim riley talk 00:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Keble College, Oxford

You will know it, and appreciate it, but his comment on attitudes towards Keble in the 1920s is too funny for words:

"In Oxford it was universally believed that Ruskin had built Keble, and that it was the ugliest building in the world".

I put it in the Keble article some time ago, but suspect it's too tangential for here. Great to see you, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Typical Oxonian airs, when it is beyond question that Harvard has the world's ugliest building: see here; and Keble isn't even the ugliest university building in England: see here. Tim riley talk 22:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's face it, all these were trail-blazers in their day, but have been left clear behind in recent decades... Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Seen these? Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I rather like those actually. One might not want the top one in say Siena, but in Southend... Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Life Long Labour voter?

I checked the James Stourton's Kenneth Clark: Life, Art and Civilisation and it doesn't seem to mention Kenneth Clark as a life long labour voter. This seems to something that Mary Beard claims. Life long loyal voter... A big claim with little sources to back it. Jacob Zumba (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about KC's politics. Anthony Powell called him "a socialist who lives in a castle" (among other apparent contradictions). Tim riley talk 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm - he lived in such safe Tory seats there wasn't much risk in the gesture! Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

[4] - “socialist conscience”, James Stourton; [5] - “caviar socialism”, Catholic Herald. More could be found. I don’t actually think it is that “big” a claim - plenty of Clark’s milieu went far further left. Anthony Blunt, anyone? KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

New image available

File:Kenneth Clark photographed by Herbert Lambert.jpg

I have recently uploaded this photograph of KC as a teenager by Herbert Lambert to Wikimedia Commons. Please use it if you think you can find a place for it in this article. Liam2520 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I suggest we replace the picture of Ruskin with it. Any thoughts on that, colleagues? Tim riley talk 15:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Or under the infobox, at the TOC gap? Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ruskin was pretty important to Clark. I wouldn't remove that picture, or at least have another image of Ruskin in the article. Liam2520 00:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Johnbod's idea is best, then. Tim riley talk 10:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks good how it is now. I think it looked a bit cramped the way I had it before, anyways. Liam2520 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

John Berger

John Berger was a very popular critic, but did he have any knowledge of art history?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. He seems rather a forgotten figure now, but his views are mentioned in the sources and deserve a mention in the article I think. Any other editors have thoughts on this? Tim riley talk 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

He trained and practiced as a painter before turning to criticism. But he had no specific training in conventional art history. With Ways of Seeing he represented the alternative British tv perspective on art history to Clark, and in those days there were far fewer such programmes. He himself may be "rather a forgotten figure now", outside academia anyway, but in many respects his views have been highly influential, & are now part of the received ideas of much thinking about art. I think the mention is appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)