Schama to shellfish

Been enthralled rewatching the eight-part docuseries “Simon Schama’s Power of Art,keeping winter’s brrr at bay with deep insights and gobsmacking grandeur. The 2006 BBC show, now streaming, profiles an octet of artistic titans hosted by the smartest guy in the room, scholar and scamp Simon Schama, known for a heap of cultured feats, including “Citizens,” the landmark history of the French Revolution. 

With theatrical kick and piercing opinions, Schama surveys these pigment-stained characters in one-hour slices: Caravaggio (blood, beauty and butchery); Bernini (boggling, blissed-out sculpture); Rembrandt (peerless Dutch portraits — “Mr. Clever Clogs,” Schama cracks); David (the divisive “Death of Marat”); Turner (violent squalls of blinding light); Van Gogh (dazzling swirl-scapes, with an ear to the ground); Picasso (Cubism: Braque ’n’ roll); and Rothko (pulsing rectangles of preternatural color). 

Tweedy but cool, shirt buttoned low, Schama is a delight. He deploys effortless erudition with an impish glint in his eye, a calibrated smirk and a gift for eloquent, giggle-making irony — he’s brainy and funny. But he’s also dead serious, reverent, about his heroes and their eternal masterworks. Art, he seems to say, is no joke. Except when it is.

As one observer says, “Schama is not neutral; he argues, provokes, and interprets boldly,” adding that the series “helped shift popular art docs away from polite scholarship toward emotion, conflict, and stakes.”

It’s how he peels back the works’ essence and the artists’ humanism that stands out. For example, he not only declares but demonstrates how Van Gogh “created modern art” amid a maelstrom of mortal mental distress. (That chapter is understandably the most heartbreaking.)

If you like transcendent art — “Slave Ship”! “Starry Night”! “Guernica”! — cinematic reenactments with fine actors in real locations, and the sly, conspiratorial air of a charismatic host, the series is a feast. More than edifying, it’s electrifying.

Just listen to this guy: “Great art has dreadful manners,” says Schama, who writes every episode. “The greatest paintings grab you in a headlock, rough up your composure, and then proceed in short order to rearrange your reality.” 

Right about there, my knees buckle.

Schama presenting Caravaggio’s gleefully grisly “David with the Head of Goliath”

I’ve been blabbing here about going to Marseille in early February. A picturesque coastal city, the second largest in France, it’s famed for a gritty, hip, multicultural vibe, a fabulous port and craggy shorelines kissed by Listerine-blue Mediterranean waters.  

Marseille is also famous for its motley cuisine, from French and Moroccan to pizza and West African. But above all it’s known for the iconic, somewhat extravagant seafood stew, bouillabaisse — rich, aromatic and typically made with various Mediterranean fish. 

The recipe generally goes like this, and here I’m cribbing:

A traditional bouillabaisse has two parts:

  1. The broth – saffron-gold, flavored with fennel, garlic, tomato, orange zest, olive oil, and Provençal herbs.
  2. The fish – several firm, rock-dwelling fish from the Mediterranean, added in stages so each cooks properly.

Now, many hot-shot chefs mess with the recipe, adding shrimp, lobster, mussels and other mollusks, god forbid. This bouillabaisse virgin — never had it! — is allergic to shrimp and lobster (an adult-onset allergy; I love shrimp), so I fretted about where I would get a purely traditional fish stew in Marseille.

All the guidebooks and websites point to one restaurant, Chez Fonfon, which has been serving bouillabaisse for 74 years using scorpion fish, red mullet, eel and other fishies in its recipe. “We offer to prepare the fish in front of you or already prepared for immediate enjoyment,” says the Fonfon site. I’ll take the show, please. 

Then, as is my wont, I over-thunk the meal. What if they also add shrimp or lobster? I’d just have to see. Or not. Yesterday I emailed Chez Fonfon and asked the question. A few hours later they responded.

“Our bouillabaisse is prepared in the traditional way, using only rock fish and vegetables. It does not contain any crustaceans such as shrimp or lobster.”

Jackpot. Now I can sleep at night and dream of rock fish swimming in my bowl, sans crustaceans stinking up the joint, toxic creatures that would make my throat swell, my breathing sputter, likely ending in my death, face-down in my very first, and last, bouillabaisse. Merde!

Turned on by Turner

Two of my favorite J.M.W. Turner paintings reside in museums not far from me: the harrowing “The Slave Ship” at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the thrashing, splashing “Whalers” at The Met in New York. Both are masterworks by the 19th-century British artist, who began his career on a crest of acclaim only to come crashing down, relegated to solitary ignominy.

The disgrace was a direct result of Turner’s artistic magnificence. His unyielding depictions of roiling landscapes and maritime dramas revealed a radical stylist, whose fevered visions and intoxicated abstractions alternately pleased and repulsed.

Turner’s credo was “Never settle for the charming or the pretty,” says historian Simon Schama in his BBC series “The Power of Art,” a master class of lyrical, mind-stretching erudition that I cannot recommend more.

“This is what drives the very greatest art  — contempt for ingratiation,” Schama notes in the episode about Rembrandt, a sentiment that clearly applies to Turner.

Early on, Turner could do little wrong, producing glittering, golden landscapes composed of, says Schama, “fairy dust.” The tableaus are electric storms of color — earth of blazing blood-reds, skies of bedazzling golds. Technically unconventional, his scribbly, smeary works were a bridge to Impressionism, a vital crossing between the Romantic and the modern.

He enjoyed early hits like 1812’s crowd-pulling “Snow Storm: Hannibal and his Army Crossing the Alps,” which I recently saw at the Tate Britain. The picture is so epic, it’s almost literature.

But Turner felt the tug of the pure artist. He wanted more. Ambition hurled him forth into novel spheres of creativity and he evolved into a “painter of chaos, conflagration and apocalypse, wild and ambitious,” Schama says with a barely veiled grin.

This later period culminated with what Schama calls “the greatest British painting of the 19th century” — the dreadfully majestic “The Slave Ship.” Awash in horrors, the picture, based on a historical episode, depicts a ship in the distance and, closer to us, its human cargo — African slaves who have been thrown overboard — bobbing in the sea.

Slave-ship.jpg
“The Slave Ship” (1840)

Critics hated the painting, controversial for its divisive subject and flamboyant technique, though Schama considers it Turner’s “greatest triumph in the sculptural carving of space.” It is a masterpiece.

“Whalers,” from 1845, was also not an immediate hit, though it’s one of the works I most seek out at The Met. Its violent subject matter, rendered with aggressive abstraction, proved slippery to viewers. At first blush — squint your eyes —  it’s difficult to figure out what you’re looking at. I see a ship, but what’s that dark glob?

3818.jpg
“Whalers” (1845)

Allow novelist William Thackeray, Turner’s contemporary, to clear things up:

“That is not a smear of purple you see yonder, but a beautiful whale, whose tail has just slapped a half-dozen whale-boats into perdition; and as for what you fancied to be a few zig-zag lines spattered on the canvas at hap-hazard, look! They turn out to be a ship with all her sails.”

Yes! Of course. And this sudden clarity irradiates what is already a clear, uncontested tour de force, a painting that may have baffled for all its surpassing beauty.