And David had to just politely keep smiling and laughing politely as he wished the sofa was two or three feet wider

@@markjoscelyne7513 Prove it.

I was just about to tune out for this very reason and yours is the first comment i saw. I'm now sick of her voice because of it.

Exactly. Time them. He claims plenty of time.

I agree, not only do I wish she had let David speak more, but I also wish she had been a little less self-satisfied. I agree with David's opinion 100%. The Roman sculptors DID make differences in features that correspond to the real face of whoever they were sculpting. I think Mary is probably the only person who, on closely looking at them, cannot see any differences. I'm going to buy 'Unruly' now!

Is that because of all the self denial and hypocrisy?

@@mamba101 Troll.

I just rounded off my fourth re-read of it today! It's one of my favorite books ever, absolutely worth reading and re-reading. As an American, it's also great to learn about the history of a country that I was only taught about from the early 1600's to the mid 1940's in school.

+

So how many times a day do you think about Mary Beard? 🤔

If that's what you want you can get his audiobook, which he narrates.

I agree many times over. This woman bores me so thoroughly that I cannot even enjoy David’s talk, I just want it to be over.

It's weird how many people seem to dislike Beard. She's a brilliant historian and author with fascinating insight. David is a hobbyist; a hilarious, entertaining hobbyist, but this wasn't just a chat about comedy. It was about history, and Mary is one of the most knowledgeable modern-day greco-roman historians. A difference of opinion, I guess.

I wish they would repeat it.

Yeah man, David could write some comedy sketches to pepper it with. I’d watch that!

In what regard is Beard ' even more impressive'?

Try The Cloud Atlas. It's brilliant.

He also wrote the Business Secrets of The Pharoahs (though under a pseudonym). Published by British London.

@@andrewgrant6516 isn't that by a different David Mitchell?

@@pegm5937sure is

Bottom left? Ha ha. Totally agree. It is exactly the way he tends to look off to the side.

All hail Little Alex Horne!!

@@JuliaHopewell Vitellius (Top centre) could, at a stretch (pun intended) be Greg Davies??

King Alex the Little

I understood what informational meant

It's interesting that ruler and rule has the same root as ruler for cm. It is the same in German and French. The ruler is the one who has a vested interest in reductionism.

@@Ludifant - It comes from "regula" as in "a norm" or "a law". The ruler is the person dictating the norms, and a measuring ruler has divisions with a normalized length. It's not really about "reductionism", it's about _regulation._

lol

They've had a drink

Good question. It’s pretty strange. Someone messed up. But the editing is also super weird so I’m not surprised that they didn’t know what they’re doing. 🤷‍♂️

@@78625amginE The editing is like that because this a recorded live talk in a large room that had other screens in it, sort of like a modern church. They were doing the "edits" live which were just cuts to other cameras with close or wide shots.

@@bleysmcnutt5500 many live shows are produced this way. For some reason they chose to “fade through black” instead of a more standard “cut” or “quick dissolve”. Since fading to black generally denotes passing time, the result is a bit strange.

The original “I’m a lady” reference!

stop whining..

Strange. I'm not even a native speaker and I understood everything. Maybe try listening with headphones?

That's not untrue. But she also had a huge number of designer brands that were made in Europe.

Like Fritzl

Perhaps they will ask you to sit next to David next time and you can discuss your best selling book.

If he sat like that next to her, nobody would notice

@@magster6022 I would - although it wouldn't be as noteworthy. I would think, "Here we go again - another insecure, privileged male broadcasting his dominance." It wouldn't reflect well on him, and it doesn't on her, either, even if it is turn-around.

That said, I understand her impulse to push back on the status quo.

Matronisation

He's an idiot.

Are you sane? David was uncomfortable and irritated by her constant condescension and pontificating. I hope you have Asperger's or something other wise you are way off on social relations.

It was only a small settee. Unless they sat on the arms they couldn’t avoid crossing personal space. Davids foot is facing away from Mary not towards her. They would have been better sat on separate chairs facing each other to help in proper communication. They were talking to each other so well.

Except when it comes to art.

@@billythedog-309 - 😉 but which art? I think I remember a program on busts of the Caesars.

Not on medieval Britain.

@@TheSuzberry And? She is arguing that people can only recognise realistic depictions of human beings because we are taught to do so. David Mitchell doesn't believe that and neither do l.

"The expert" on what? She literally admitted that she had no idea which medieval British king had ruled when. This isn't a lecture just on Roman emperors.

Apart from prisoners there are still actual slaves who quite possibly made our clothes, shoes and phones. Perhaps we could all carry socially conscious labels.

It's because it was done live.

Indeed!!!❤

okay

It wasn't really a matter of _ability._ Middle ages art and iconography wasn't _attempting_ to be realistic. For several reasons, the first of which being the fact that the people making those drawings had never _seen_ the real person. So, rather than try to draw a very realistic face that wouldn't match the real king (or saint, etc.), they owned up to the fact that it was just a drawing, and followed certain visual rules to explain the _role_ of each character in the depiction, at the cost of realism. Think of it as a medieval Funko Pops fad. They're not trying to look like real humans, they're just trying to be _identifiable characters_ while following some peculiar (but broadly consistent) stylistic rules. Of course, the fact that that was the prevailing style for a long time meant that artists didn't have much experience with realistic paintings (just like renaissance artists wouldn't have been able to do a cubist or impressionist painting), but even a child would have been able to draw something a _bit_ more realistic than 99% of medieval paintings. But they weren't going for visual realism, they were going for narrative.

Thinking you might want to explore the art of Alta Mira and the Lascaux Caves among others. Pre-agriculturist hominins had culture and an appreciation for each others' minds.

Real. Not to be rude, but she seems to be treating him like that because of general arrogance and dismissal of David because he's a comedian and not a 'real' historian. As a deep fan of history, politics, and David's literary work, he is definitely competent as both a historian and a comedian.

@@bleysmcnutt5500 She's pointing out factual errors where she sees them. If it were in a classroom you'd say she was doing her job properly. Because she's doing it to a comedian you like you think it's somehow unfair. If David is a real historian then he should be prepared for other historians to critique his work, as I'm sure Mary and her peers have had their work critiqued. Edit: Stupid old cow needs to stop interrupting though 😄

😱

Mary Beard is like many authors, half a nut job. Weird to find it in a woman,, usually it's an eccentric man. Never discuss stuff with an author.

They weren't _incapable._ They weren't even trying (in fact, in some cases they were deliberately trying _not_ to be realistic), just as the people designing Funko Pops aren't trying (and failing) to sculpt realistic humans, they're simply trying to create recognisable _characters_ while following some specific stylistic rules.

@@RFC3514 So basically you are claiming that medieval artists in Europe could paint realistic portraits of actual human beings, but instead chose the medium of caricature, for artistic reasons, for centuries, without leaving a single study behind that can be described as realistic? Should we throw out all academic writing on the history of European art then? Or perhaps you are claiming that medieval nobility, kings and queens looked like cartoons in real life and they WERE being realistic?

@@emdiar6588 In his book, David talks a lot about how, because most of the drawings come from monks who never laid eyes on the ruler, or had very base descriptions to draw on (as well as being constrained by the fact that they could write well, not draw) the drawings are hilariously poor. I have a theory that this is because it didn't matter, as the minority of literate Britain would only read of their reigns, and the majority of illiterate subsistence farmers would only be effected by their governmental interaction. One can see that when imagery started to matter as more rulers lived their lives in the public eye (The late-Plantagenet and all of the Tudors, particularly Henry VIII) actual portrait artists and those who provided Heraldry work become more and more relevant to build the image of the royals.

@@emdiar6588 - You don't need to "throw out" anything, this is a well known fact for anyone who's studied art history, and it didn't apply just to Europe (ex., nishiki-e art in Japan). In fact, in some societies that is _still_ the case with religious and historical paintings. Trying to imitate nature realistically was / is seen as arrogant and blasphemous. Do you also think cubists adopted that style because they were _unable_ to make more realistic depictions (or because they had some problem with their eyesight and thought cubist depictions did look realistic)? Medieval European artists knew perfectly well that their depictions didn't look realistic. And they had plenty of time to make them more realistic, if they wanted to. It doesn't take that much training or effort to make something that looks a bit _more_ realistic than medieval icons and illuminations. But the fact is they _didn't_ want to, just like nishiki-e artists in Japan weren't (and aren't) trying to depict realistic humans in physically accurate environments. The fact that so many examples of (non-realistic) medieval art follow the _same_ style should make it clear that these aren't just random people who picked up a pen or a brush for the first time. They're _deliberately_ following a similar style. The return to a more realistic art style actually coincided with a more humanist / naturalist period, where the church started to lose power over people's lives and their view of the world, and where observing, depicting and understanding nature _as it actually is_ became more acceptable. And _that_ kind of ended up shackling art in other ways, for a couple of centuries, but that's a whole different issue. TL;DR: Again, think of Funko Pops. Maybe some (or most) of the people creating them are great at realistic sculpting, maybe some (or most) are not. That doesn't really determine the "realism" of the figures they're creating, because *they're not even **_trying_** to make them realistic.* Even a child could make them look (a bit or a lot) _more_ realistic than that. But that is / was simply _not_ the goal.

@@RFC3514 The cubist also left behind lots of work done before they became cubists, and guess what - they DID know about perspective and scale after all. Where are your pre renaissance examples of perspective? I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. You and Mary vs me and David. You are wrong though.

completely agree with you. The woman was irritating and patronising.

Poor David Mitchell, he knew he couldn't be antagonistic back to this old woman Mary Beard. If it were a man he'd be more free. Weird situation. Mary was saying interesting stuff sorta.

I think the point is that rural populations mostly kept living the way they lived when the Romans were there. There wasn't some big _instant_ sweeping change across the country for remote farmers and villagers.

David talks about that in the book. How people just forgot how to build Roman structures after they left. He cites several poems written in old English about it. He uses this stanza from "The Wanderer": Where is that horse now? Where the rider? Where is the hoard-sharer? Where is the house of the feast? Where is the hall’s uproar? It paints a great image of a titanic sense of loss that losing that Roman knowledge caused.

Thank you for that reply. Sounds like his book would be a good buy. He wouldn't have wanted to interrupt the flow of this interview by being impolite and talking over the top of his fellow author . Still, long old time to leave progress alone .@@bleysmcnutt5500

Quite. As much as I respect her as an academic, there is a scent of "agenda" which hangs over all of her observations. We get it: men ran the show for much of history. That doesn't mean that every great achievements they made should be denigrated with such slurs as "macho". She believes that everything would be much nicer and fairer if women were in charge. I can only assume she was out of the country when Thatcher was in Number 10.

@@emdiar6588 - Cleopatra famously resolved everything amicably.

Agreed. That's the point I'm at in watching, and it irritated me so much I paused to look at the comments. I thought her glib and not very thoughtful. Also, I listen nearly nightly (for sleep purposes!) to various history audiobooks, and those which cover the reaction of the locals to the departure of the Romans seem to align with David's points about that period.