medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Naturally I'm terrified to go up against such giants in their field.
Dear Marjorie,
don't be askert.
even a field as inherently funkie as art history has --or should have-- *some*
rules.
sure, you *can* say that Judas' hand is sure in a provocative place, making
what appears to be a provocative gesture; but there should always be at least
the possibility that sometimes you might be called upon to show folks your
hole card --just a *bit* of proof for whatever supposition you're imposing on
the artifact you're supposedly engaged in illuminating.
and, re the Judas capital, as best i can recall (not very well), Professor
Seidel's argument fails to satisfy.
there, as elsewhere, one has the feeling that, though she's obviously done
quite a bit of work, obviously over quite a few years, and put quite a lot of
thought into the thing, there's a certain....half-baked... quality which
leaves one wanting.
the idea of an ecclesiastical monument as a "congruent replication" (again, my
term, not her's) of another, distant and more numinous one --much more
sweeping and broadly applicable as it is than any particular iconographic
interpretation of a particular artifact-- is *just* titillating enough to whet
the appitite, make one think that there really *might* be some there, there...
but, for one reason or another, it just doesn't seem to jell out right. or,
didn't for me.
part of that failure, as i humbly see it, is due to the author's stepping well
out of the traditional confines of her discipline --a very, very commendable
thing to do, to be sure, but one which absolutely *requires* that the neophyte
go a considerable distance down the road of actually mastering the unfamiliar
territory.
and this she clearly fails to do when it is a question of the use of purely
historical sources.... and also when she ventures into territory which, i was
hoping, would be more in the bailiwick of the learnéd folks on this list.
but *i* can't tell, because it's not my bailiwick, either.
to be fair (and i really do *not* have an axe to grind here), more often than
not when an otherwise excellent scholar from another discipline decides to
splash around in the shallow end of the art historical wading pool those "in
the know" have the same sense of painful discomfort and frustration in trying
to figure out just where the fellow went off the rails, which fundamental
tenants of the discipline he failed to take notice of in his rush to use a new
tool.
it's an occupational hazzard, i suppose, but one which only afflicts those
with enough imagination to, first, think it might be niece to go through the
looking glass, and, then, the cajones to actually *do* it.
best from here,
christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|