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)

The book of Ways of Seeing may have had a longer afterlife than the television programme; it was a set text for art history students when I was one just under two decades ago. The book was treated as the antithesis of Gombrich's Story of Art, which was seen as representing the canon of art history; Clark's Civilisation wasn't mentioned (but his The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form was on the reading list for one of our courses). Ham II (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Kenneth Clark

a.k.a Lord Clark of Civilisation. I've worked on this article on and off for seven years and am thinking about putting it up for GAN or FAC. Suggestions for improving it will be gratefully received, as will views on whether FAC is a reasonable aspiration or whether just to aim at GA. Tim riley talk 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

SC

Will pop in shortly, this year or next. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• As usual you sit on the fence with the serial comma, using it and not using it without any obvious pattern.

• Ta. I'll make sure it's consistent before I progress to FAC. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• And now done, I hope. Tim riley talk 12:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• "In 1932 Clark and his wife Jane commissioned without a brief a dinner service": I think this could be put a bit more clearly

Agreed - it's a very odd single-sentence paragraph. Was it inserted by the author of the Dinner Service article to make a link? And what does, "without a brief" mean? The source in that article has a long section titled "There was no brief", but it's really saying that Grant and Bell had a completely free hand in the the design/decoration of the service. If it's needed at all, perhaps as a footnote? KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Not my doing and I concur that it isn't needed. Blitzed. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Belatedly checked the Stourton and Secrest biographies and this commission doesn't rate a mention in their aggregate 788 pages, and no call to drag it into our 5,600-word article. Tim riley talk 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• "In 1936 he gave the Ryerson Lectures..." I'm delighted, as a fan of the semi colon, to see two of them employed here, but think it may raise eyebrows and comment from some.

• I'm tempted to say j'y suis, j'y reste, but I've changed the first semicolon to a full stop. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• "A disused slate mine" you could name (or at least pipe a link to) Bwlch y Slaters quarry

• Excellent! Done. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Done to the start of the Postwar section; more to follow. Reads very smoothly at the moment, and I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be popped into FAC once the review is done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Continuing:

• "centuries – all men – Clark had neglected women,[82] and presented": I stumbled over this a little and had to re-read the sentence a couple of times before it became clear

• Tweaked. Is it all right now, SchroCat? Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Emailed with explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Received and acted on, thank you. Refs now together at end of sentence. Tim riley talk 10:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• 'His modus operandi was dubbed "the great man approach",[82]': I think this may need a little clarification

• I think having "a saga of noble names and sublime objects with little regard for the shaping forces of economics or practical politics" immediately beforehand makes the meaning plain. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• 'Among his books is "the best introduction': I think inline attribution would be beneficial here.

• You're right. Done. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo should be "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo" with speech marks.

• Done. Thanks for this, and for all the excellent comments preceding it. Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot. Minor quibbles and nothing more; please ping me when you take this to FAC, which you certainly should. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• FN48: "Stourton, pp. 178–179, and 184": any need for the comma? - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • No, now you mention it. Blitzing. Tim riley talk 14:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

KJP1

Clark's most inspired purchase

Also reserving a spot. Once this extraordinary omission is corrected, I can't see any reason why the destination shouldn't be FAC. KJP1 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Tim - just a few content suggestions from me:

• Great Bookcase - I definitely think this deserves a mention. Not, as you may suspect, to shoehorn Burges in! but because I think it represents an important instance of Clark as collector. As Matthew Winterbottom says, it was a "particularly farsighted and pioneering acquisition", made by Clark when no other museum director would conceivably have made that decision, [6]. Charlotte Ribeyrol, in her 2023 book devoted entirely to the bookcase, calls it a "crucial acquisition" made when Clark was well aware that the bookcase was "not acceptable to present taste". It would fit nicely in the second paragraph of Early career. An alternative placing, which I think it may merit, is in the second para. of Reputation, when you consider his current status as a collector. As a aside, it must be one of the best artistic buys of the 20th century; £50 in 1933, millions now! If you'd like, I'd be very happy to draft a sentence or two - it wouldn't need more.

• I've added some words. Luckily, there is no room for a photograph of this eyesore. Tim riley talk 11:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The absence of a photo of the bookcase is a very grave omission! KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wartime - The removal of the NPG's pictures to North Wales and their storage at Manod was preceded by a less-successful attempt to store them in country houses, including taking many to Penrhyn Castle, [7]. This didn't go well, leading Sir Martin Davies to complain bitterly about Lord Penrhyn's drunken escapades. You may think this is a bit tangential to Clark, and you may be right, but I think it could make a nice footnote. Again, happy to draft, if you wish.

• I do indeed think this a bit tangential to KC, but if you like to draft a footnote it would do no harm. Tim riley talk 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right, too tangential. KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Gothic Revival - covered in Early years, I wonder if it also warrants a mention in the Reputation section? I appreciate he was an art historian, not an architectural historian, but his early, insistent, and continued, demand that Victorian art/architecture be considered seriously, even if not enjoyed!, was important. This article, [8], talks of how "Clark's writing on Victorian architecture and perennial commitment to John Ruskin's output and significance would constitute a major contribution" to the revival of the reputation of Victorian art, and there are loads of others. As an aside, that article also throws an interesting light on Clark's relationship with Charles Bell, Bell writing, "I shall never really like him, or his wife".

• Good idea. I'll add a bit to the Reputation section. Tim riley talk 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And now done. Tim riley talk 12:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are my, rather Victorian-focused, thoughts. Just shout if you'd like me to draft a few lines for consideration. I look forward to seeing it at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Apart from the omission of the image of the bookcase, they all look good. Incidentally, I see that Clark's entry in James Stevens Curl's Oxford Dictionary of Architecture says: "Apart from books on art, his early volume on the 'Gothic Revival' (a work which greatly helped the appreciation of Victorian architecture) may prove to have been his most influential creation, changing perceptions and taste". Curl also writes; "Although he [Clark] claimed Ruskin was a major influence on his thought, he delivered his own messages with lucidity, elegance and aplomb, never wallowing in purple prose or exaggeration (faults painfully evident in Ruskin's work)". There may be something there you could use. KJP1 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

p.s. Purely by chance, I came across J. G. Links's description of Clark in Venice for Pleasure, "the greatest connoisseur of his time". But then, Links wasn't a critic by training so his view may count for less, although he was no mean connoisseur himself. KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Links calls KC "perhaps the greatest connoisseur of his day", which isn't quite the unqualified encomium one would be seeking if quoting in a Reputation section. But the Curl quote is excellent and I've added it. Tim riley talk 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Aza24

Have only skimmed, but a great read from what I can see. These are mostly random nitpicks:

• You rightly describe him as first and foremost an art historian, but the lead doesn't back this up: there's no remark on which art and what artists he was publishing on. I would say Italian Renaissance art is probably his most prominent speciality; maybe a sentence could be inserted along the lines of "Although his research spanned a wide variety of topics, he is closely associated with Italian Renaissance art, particularly that of Leonardo da Vinci"
  • Although Britannica calls him "a leading authority on Italian Renaissance art" [9], so perhaps the wording ought to be stronger than my suggested line
    • Redrawn. Do you think it's OK now? Tim riley talk 15:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• I would be hesitent to call Berenson a dealer. Full-fledged delears, such as Joseph Duveen, 1st Baron Duveen, turned to him for an authoriative voice as an art historian
• Do you think Roger Fry is worth lead mention? In my mind, the combination of Ruskin, Berenson and Fry paint a more complete picture of his primary influences
  • Both above attended to. Tim riley talk 15:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Probably the infobox occupations should match the lead's first sentence
  • Indeed, and done. Looking forward to working through your remaining points shortly. Tim riley talk 15:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• On my screen, the images of Ruskin and the young Clark painting are creating a WP:Sandwich. I'd suggest one be removed
  • On a similar note, I wonder why the 1911 image is used after the 1918 one? The backwards chronology may be a bit suprising to readers
    • All three images now rejigged. I've checked on three different computers and there's no sandwiching. Tim riley talk 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Leda and the Swan (Leonardo) may be a better link for the Leda drawing
  • Decidedly, and now done, thank you! Tim riley talk 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• I have no doubt that Giorgone's work was "was inadequately represented in the gallery at the time", but it's a rather odd thing to say. There are so few paintings reliability attributed to Giorgone that I'd say essentially every gallery on earth has an inadequate representation of him!
  • Well, point taken, but I think in KC's day there were rather more supposed Giorgiones about than there are now. The National Gallery's tally is now a massive two (out of, I understand, six anywhere in the world) which is a 100% increase over the figure in Clark's day, but he thought he'd found four additional ones. Tim riley talk 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I've added an explanatory footnote and tweaked the sentence. Tim riley talk 13:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• We have an article for the Alberti publication (De pictura), but I'm not sure if there's a convenient way to link it
  • Not a problem: I've simply copied and pasted your link. Spot on. Tim riley talk 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• It might be nice to link to the full painting, The Resurrection in the image caption
  • Very good idea, and done. Tim riley talk 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• To my eye, all of his major publications are discussed in the text, except The Nude (1956). I see its mentioned in the reputations section, but perhaps it warrents further attention
  • In truth, I don't think I'm competent to give the book further attention and I'd be grateful for a suggested sentence or so. Tim riley talk 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Those are my thoughts—impressive writing as usual. – Aza24 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Aza24. Once again you've done to me what you did at the FAC for Schumann – making me uneasily conscious that you know a helluva lot more about the subject than I do – but the article is much the better for your suggestions and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc

• Lead
• After the war, and three years as Slade Professor of Fine Art at Oxford,... The comma after "war" can be omitted. Is it necessary?

It is necessary to open the subordinate phrase that follows and is closed with the necessary second comma. Tim riley talk 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Clark surprised many by accepting the chairmanship of the UK's first commercial television network. Is it possible to mention the network's name here in short? MSincccc (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Linked from lead as well as in main text. Tim riley talk 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Life and Career:

• Can we mention "His father" instead of "Kenneth Clark senior" in some of the places for a more concise version after it has been mentioned that the latter was his father?

I do not think "Clark's father" rather than "Clark senior" is an improvement. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Life and career

• The appointment was announced in The London Gazette in July 1934;[36] Clark held the post for the next ten years.[37] Can "the next ten years" be replaced with "the next decade"?

Why?

• Can The Burlington Magazine, looking back at Clark's time at the gallery, be replaced with The Burlington Magazine, reflecting on Clark's tenure at the gallery, ...

Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• He saw them in 1937 in the possession of a dealer in Vienna,[45] and against the united advice of his professional staff he persuaded the trustees to buy them. Can "united advice" be replaced with "unanimous advice"?

No. United and unanimous are not synonyms. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley In British English, "unanimous advice" is the correct term to indicate that all members of a group agree on a particular course of action. "United advice" is not a standard expression in this context. The term "unanimous" specifically refers to complete agreement among all parties involved. Therefore, the sentence should read: "He saw them in 1937 in the possession of a dealer in Vienna, and against the unanimous advice of his professional staff, he persuaded the trustees to buy them."

Reference-[10] MSincccc (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And how, pray, do you know the opposition was unanimous? The source (ODNB) specifically says "united". Tim riley talk 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fine then. MSincccc (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley In British English, both "looking back at" and "reflecting on" are used to describe considering past events. However, "reflecting on" often implies a deeper, more thoughtful analysis, while "looking back at" can suggest a more general recollection. Replacing "looking back at" with "reflecting on" in the sentence "The Burlington Magazine, looking back at Clark's time at the gallery..." would convey a more contemplative tone, indicating a thorough examination of his tenure. The Cambridge Dictionary defines "reflecting" as "thinking carefully and deeply about something," suggesting a more thoughtful consideration. Therefore, "reflecting on" enhances the depth and formality of writing. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I note your opinion. Tim riley talk 17:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Wartime

• The caption of the image could be slightly tweaked:

Myra Hess, the inspiration and mainstay of the National Gallery's wartime concerts

Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley Was she not the only inspiration? MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The main one. So what? The definite article is not needed in any case. Tim riley talk 17:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Broadcasting:admininstrator, 1954-1957

• It had been set up by the Conservative government to introduce ITV, commercial television, funded by advertising, as a rival to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Could the meaning of this sentence be made clearer?

How? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Broadcasting: ITV, 1957–1966

• Revised sentence -By the time he presented a programme about Picasso in 1960, Clark had further honed his presentational skills and came across as relaxed as well as authoritative.[73]

Not an improvement, me judice. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• The Guardian could be linked here.

Done. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Civilisation, 1966-1969

• Clark was attracted by the suggestion, but at first declined to commit himself. "At first" can be replaced with "initially" here.

Why? Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley In British English, both "at first" and "initially" are grammatically correct and convey the same meaning. However, "initially" is considered more formal and is often preferred in academic or professional contexts. The Cambridge Grammar of English notes that "initially" is more formal than "first" or "at first" when listing points. Additionally, Merriam-Webster defines "initially" as "at the beginning," indicating its interchangeable use with "at first." Therefore, using "initially" instead of "at first" can enhance the formality and precision of your writing. MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As it is longer and starchier than the plain "at first" I do not regard it as an improvement. Tim riley talk 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Later years: 1970-1983

• In 1976, Clark returned to the BBC, presenting five programmes about Rembrandt. The comma after "1976" can be omitted here as you have done the same for the rest of the article's prose.

See current edition of Plain Words, p. 249. Tim riley talk 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• During his last ten years he wrote thirteen books. "Last ten years" can be replaced with "last decade".

Why? Tim riley talk 15:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley "Last ten years" is a more general expression, while "last decade" conveys the same meaning with a focus on the specific 10-year period. Using "decade" can also streamline the sentence, making it more succinct. MSincccc (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I’d agree with Tim on this: it’s not an improvement and arguing the point isn’t the best way to conduct a PR. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

SchroCat, I fear MSincccc has yet to understand that a reviewer's job is not to say how s/he would have written the article but rather to point out errors, omissions and infelicities and suggest emendations. Tim riley talk 17:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley I am a "he". I was merely offering suggestions and pointing out omissions; it was up to you whether to implement them or not. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley and @SchroCat What about this comment above? I am willing to learn from the two of you if it helps me to become a better reviewer and write higher quality articles. But I do understand the fact that in the end it is upto the author(s) concerned to make the revisions and that a reviewer can only suggest omissions, errors, and improvements (which can be rejected). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You may like to study the suggestions from all three of the previous reviewers. They do not say "I'd phrase it this way and so should you", but point out, most helpfully, omissions, ambiguities, confusing phrasing and factual inaccuracies. That is helpful. Calling for "initially" rather than "at first" and similar points of personal preference in drafting is not. Tim riley talk 17:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat and @Tim riley I don't want to argue with "experienced editors". As to how to conduct a PR, I will ensure that any such points will arise in future. But still why not use "decade" instead of "ten years"? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Because is it not, in the opinion of the main author and at least one of the adult reviewers an improvement. Tim riley talk 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Could you please provide an explanation so that I can use it whenever there is a confusion regarding whether "ten years" or "decade" should be used in the future. Any one of you will do, @SchroCat, @Tim riley. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Either is always acceptable, except when referring to a defined 10-year period such as the 1920s, 1960s etc, where decade is the generally preferred usage. Tim riley talk 17:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a possibility of misunderstanding with "last decade" that there isn't with "last ten years". The "last ten year" of Clark's life were 1973-1983. The "last decade" can either be taken as the same, or be referring to the 1980s, given it was the last decade in which he lived. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I will leave comments for the remaining sections later. The article has been a great read until now. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Beliefs

• Introduce Mary Beard like The classicist ... ?

I do not see how "the classicist Mary Beard said KC was a lifelong Labour voter" would help the reader. Had she been writing about his comments on ancient Greece and Rome it would have been relevant. Tim riley talk 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley Sorry, but I had overlooked the second part of the sentence. As you point out now, it is irrelevant to add "The classicist..." here. That's all I have got for the time being. Hopefully, my comments would be of more use to you in the future. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley Sorry, but I had overlooked the second part of the sentence. As you point out now, it is irrelevant to add "The classicist..." here. Hopefully, my comments would be of more use to you in the future. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the time being, @Tim riley. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)