British Masters, BBC Four/ The World's Most Expensive Paintings, BBC One

Very refreshing to have so many passionate comments. However, in answer to some of these, I say this: I haven’t argued that modern British art is second-rate. I argued that modern British art did not exist in a vacuum. This first episode not only suggested it, but explicitly argued it. Sickert, a truly great painter, was a disciple of Degas’ (Degas’ 1868 Interior [The Rape] was a painting Sickert knew well); he’d lived in France for six years before painting the work that was shown. HIs role was crucial in spreading the influence of Impressionism in London. As for Vorticism, it simply wouldn’t have existed without the European avant-garde: Wyndham Lewis was the first UK-based artist to encounter Cubism at first hand whilst living in Paris. He sought to synthesise Cubism and Italian Futurism in his work. (As for Lewis being in possession of "one of the most poisonous minds of the 20th century” – this is worthy of no further comment other than to say that it's a statement that's illustrative of much of what was said in this programme). So, I am not arguing that modern British artists are inferior – I am passionate about 20th-century British art – but rather that many of their ideas were far from home-grown. To have neglected to say this even in passing, and to claim that British art somehow gave birth to itself – and to present this as art history – was wrong. And, Jon, I love the work of the very underrated David Bomberg. I believe The Mud Bath is an audacious, radical work. Just that. Not the most, not the best, etc. Absolutely nothing I said can be seriously interpreted as an attack on the work, but an attack on Fox’s risible thesis. Having said that, I concede the programme was very entertaining. It was also dumb.