Editing Kenneth Clark (section)

===Reputation===
In 2014 [[Tate|the Tate]] held the "Kenneth Clark: Looking for Civilisation" exhibition, highlighting Clark's impact "as one of the most influential figures in British art of the twentieth century". The exhibition, drawing on works from Clark's personal collection and many other sources, examined his role as "a patron and collector, art historian, public servant and broadcaster&nbsp;... bringing art in the twentieth century to a more popular audience".<ref name=tate>[http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/kenneth-clark-looking-civilisation "Kenneth Clark – Looking for Civilisation"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106185530/http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/kenneth-clark-looking-civilisation |date=6 January 2017 }}, The Tate, retrieved 27 June 2917</ref> The BBC called him "arguably the most influential figure in 20th century British art".<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/kenneth-clark-civilisation "BBC celebrates Sir Kenneth Clark and his iconic series Civilisation"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510015944/http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/kenneth-clark-civilisation |date=10 May 2017 }}, BBC, retrieved 28 June 2017</ref> Clark's early and continuing insistence that Victorian architecture and art should be considered seriously contributed to a gradual change in public taste.<ref name=mw/> The art historian Ayla Lepine writes that Clark's writing and his "perennial commitment to John Ruskin's output and significance" made an important contribution to the re-evaluation of Victorian art and architecture.<ref>Lepine, Ayla. "The Persistence of Medievalism: Kenneth Clark and the Gothic Revival", ''Architectural History'', Volume 57, 2014, pp. 324–325</ref>

Clark knew that his broadly traditional view of art would be anathema to the [[Marxist]] element in the artistic world, and was unsurprised when he was attacked by younger critics, notably [[John Berger]], in the 1970s.<ref name=h16/> Clark's reputation among critics in the twenty-first century is higher for his books and television series than for his consistency as a collector. At the time of the Tate celebration of Clark in 2014, the critic [[Richard Dorment]] commented that both in his public and private capacity Clark made many fine purchases but also many errors. In addition to the [[Andrea Previtali]] ''Scenes from Tebaldeo's Eclogues'', Dorment lists works misattributed by Clark to Michelangelo, [[Pontormo]], [[Adam Elsheimer|Elsheimer]] and [[Claude Lorrain|Claude]], and a Seurat and a [[Corot]] that were genuine but poor examples of the artists' work.<ref name=dtel/>

Among his books is what Dorment has called "the best introduction to the art of Leonardo da Vinci ever written".<ref name=dtel/> Piper singles out, in addition to the Leonardo monograph, Clark's ''Piero della Francesca'' (1951), ''The Nude'' (1956, based on his Mellon lectures in Washington in 1953), and ''Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance'' (1966 from his Wrightsman lectures in New York).<ref name=dnb/> The critic Jackie Wullschlager wrote in 2014 that it was as a writer rather than a collector that Clark excelled: "unrivalled since Ruskin for lucidity, erudition, moral conviction".<ref>Wullschlager, Jackie. "A Question of Taste", ''The Financial Times'', 24 May 2014, p. 13</ref> James Hall, in ''The Guardian'', expressed a similar view, calling Clark "the most seductive writer on art since Ruskin and [[Walter Pater|Pater]]&nbsp;... "<ref name=hall>Hall, James. [https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/may/16/kenneth-clark-arrogant-snob-saviour-art "Kenneth Clark: arrogant snob or saviour of art?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329125304/https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/may/16/kenneth-clark-arrogant-snob-saviour-art |date=29 March 2017 }}, ''The Guardian'', 16 May 2014</ref> In ''The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture'' [[James Stevens Curl]] ranks Clark higher than Ruskin as a writer: "Although he 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)".<ref>Curl and Wilson, p. 174</ref> Hall concludes, "Today, when most art historians write as joylessly as lawyers and accountants, such verve is sorely needed".<ref name=hall/>