The episode reveals to viewers that Caravaggio was charged with murder and became a criminal, with Schama suggesting that this led to the darker themes found in his work.

[1] He details that the artwork's intended message was as a plea for forgiveness from the Pope to remove the death by decapitation sentencing that Caravaggio had received following the murder of Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606.

[2] The work was constructed in Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome over a five-year period between 1647 and 1652,[3] depicting Teresa of Àvila.

[4] Schama outlines that the painting was commissioned by the Amsterdam City Council for the new Town Hall (Cavalli-Björkman, Görel, and Margaretha Rossholm-Lagerlöf 135–136).

The host notes, the work was painted after the death of his wife and three of his children, describing that the etched, darker brushwork was influenced by this.

The episode analyses how the artwork was as a tribute to his late friend and French Revolution leader, Jean-Paul Marat, who had been murdered by Charlotte Corday.

The episode details the effect Van Gogh's lack of wealth had on his work, where this combined with his undiagnosed epilepsy, saw him end up in a mental asylum.

It was here that Van Gogh was inspired to, “Sadness, extreme loneliness,”[7] while also wanting to show what he considered, “Healthy and fortifying about the countryside.”[7] Schama examines the subject matter of the work, where, “The menacing sky, the crows and the dead-end path are said to refer to the end of his life approaching.”[8] Schama outlines how the artwork was crafted in response to the bombing of a defenceless city,[9] Guernica, by Nazi planes during the Spanish Civil War.

The series is produced in chronological order from Caravaggio (David with the Head of Goliath, 1610) as the first episode, to Rothko (Black on Maroon, 1958) as the last artist.

First, “Getting you (the viewer) out of the art gallery, out of the harsh world of the acoustic, where a guy tells you how long to stand in front of a painting and when to move on.

And plunk you back down into Rome in the 17th century, or Amsterdam or the Spanish Civil War.”[14] (4:10) Further he states that he aimed to make viewers feel the very situations of the painting, “To make the hair stand on the back of your neck, at this moment of panic or crisis, or drama, drama of the creative moment,”[14] (4:30) explaining, “If it’s going to be done, especially if I’m going to do it, the viewer has to suspend disbelief, that’s what we do in writing history.”[14] (5:53) Schama finally surmises the inspiration for creating the show.

In terms of critical reception, John McDonald of the Sydney Morning Herald describes Schama as, “Like a Hollywood director, he has the ability to turn the most humdrum aspects of an artist's biography into high adventure.”[15] New York Times writer, Alessandra Stanley (in 2007, right as the documentary was airing) commended Schama himself stating, “Power of Art, succeeds not because of the power of the chosen masterpieces but because Mr. Schama masterfully weaves engaging mysteries around each artwork.”[16] John Leonard of New York Magazine/Vulture (top critic on Rotten Tomatoes) states that, “This is not a substitute for art history; it is instead a series of seminars with a mind equal parts cultivated, enthusiastic, and idiosyncratic: his very own Bernini fountain.”[17] Christopher Smith of Bangor Daily News (Maine) posted to Rotten Tomatoes that, “If there's a criticism of the set, it's of Schama himself, who favours a heavy pen.” Smith also states, “Still, sift through the wordplay and the padding, and what you find is a mind bright with insight.”[17] In terms of numerical reviews, IMDb (with a total number of ratings of 994) rated the series 8.6 out of 10.