I have now finished re-reading Kenneth Clark’s Landscape into Art, and in some respects it has led to my revising my estimation of him. Probably the major influence shaping my perception of his work in the past was his monumental TV series Civilisation. I know that this is almost universally revered (certainly in Britain) as an example of how TV can serve the function of public education, making it great viewing as well as very informative. The series always had two large drawbacks in my opinion. Clark showed himself to be either ignorant of or indifferent to the contribution of the social sciences to the understanding of what could usefully be understood by “civilisation”. The title pretended to a generality of coverage which it did not live up to. What is more, it was terribly ethnocentric, despite its attempts to draw the net fairly widely, and in any case conveyed the impression that an English gentleman was supremely qualified to be the arbiter of what did or did not merit the term.
His book on the nude, also widely celebrated, is too close to being a “coffee table” publication, and similarly confines itself largely to addressing the representation of the human figure in European art.
Some of these limitations are still evident in Landscape into Art. His discussion comes across as almost entirely ignorant of the possibilities of fruitful comparison with non-European traditions. There is one single passing reference to Japan, no acknowledgement at all of the importance of Chinese landscape, and a similar silence regarding Islamic (especially Persian) art, in which the garden is an important and recurring theme. Possibly even more surprising is Clark’s complete exclusion from consideration of painting in North America.* Having spent a year in Canada I wonder what happened to “The Seven” to disqualify them from notice. I would also have thought that an American artist such as Thomas Moran would have earned some acknowledgement. I can see interesting ways in which their work might have been used as a counterpoint to parts of his major arguments. The most unforgivable omission in the work, however, is its complete exclusion of any recognition of Russian landscape painting. How is it possible to have written a book about landscape which makes no reference whatsoever to painters such as Ivan Shishkin, Arkhip Kuindzhi or Isaak Levitan? So, in the light of these deficiencies, why am I prepared to make any kind of apology for my former hostility to Clark?
The reason lies, quite simply, in the quality of his critical writing. He writes from a compendious reading of the background literature behind the work his discusses. His direct familiarity with an encyclopaedic array of material within the traditions of European painting is truly impressive. (Is there a significant collection he has not visited in person?) Above all, however, Clark is evidently capable of a critical appraisal of work that is both meticulous and sensitive. I think that his discussion of Suerat, to take just one example, is an absolute model of critical discourse.
I have to admit that I learned a great deal from reading Landscape into Art, which I have found not only provided me with a framework for reading and interpreting work in this genre in future, but has also caused me to begin to think through in a very different way my own relationship to it. If the value of a book can be said to lie, in very large measure, in the extent to which it stimulates further thought in the reader (rather than just recruiting “disciples” for its author) then I have to recognise that, for all its limitations, this is a very important work.
*There is an interesting debate waiting its opportunity to consider whether Edward Hopper should be considered a “landscape painter”. I think that perhaps to ask that question in itself is to begin to question the classificatory scheme which Clark develops, giving structure to his book. This prompts the thought that perhaps his omissions have to do with their failure to fit comfortably with his pre-defined classificatory scheme.