During these recent years we have seen an astonishing proliferation of TV programs dedicated to the art world. A good thing? I don't know, but if we look closely to the phenomenon is unclear how these programs are handled in the same way of political news or entertainment. Freelance journalists who improvise themselves as historians of art, famous critics and historians who perform like entertainers or clowns. Just for example here are two names: Philippe Daverio and Simon Schama. Is this really the right way to "promote" and "explain" the art? Behaving as a star of the business show and taking a sensational language? Each of them carves his televison space customizing it with the obsessive use of close-ups, with the jargon of journalists, making continuous comparisons with the contemporary world (it is always a stir), with raised eyebrows, mimicry, sensational hand gestures in imitation of theatre actors. I wonder if the general public is really helped in understanding the facts of the art. I highly doubt it. Someone will tell me that there are the images, sure, theoretically they should speak themselves although they are always accompanied by the false and misleading experts comments, but I have noticed that even the camera technique can lead to misinterpretations. How can any viewer to locate a correct explanation when the informations are often bombastic and indisputable and leave no room to get his own opinion?