medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: jbugslag <[log in to unmask]>
> It has always baffled me why some of the most remarkable masonry structures
ever built should be plastered over, with fake masonry painted over the real
stone walls. This is far from being "baretity", or whatever.
yes, cf. the excellent definition of this Technical Term previously posted.
Bareitity, by its very nature, is, well, *nothingness* which, when seen on a
wall definitely looks different from substantial Faux Ashlar.
the best way to think about it is to envision G. Duhbya Bush, strutting to a
press conference in a New Suit of Clothes, declaring war on some hapless
nation on a planet far, far away.
>I can't help thinking it represents some impossible -- possibly transcendent
-- level of idealism, or some such thing.
could very well have had some "ideological" significance --though i'd be more
inclined to think in terms of the Biblical references to the Temple being
constructed of "squared stones" (or however the text reads), than some casual
or generalized "idealism."
in addition, there were practical considerations.
many regions did not have a good supply of stone suitable for ashlar building
and would look eversomuch better with a nice coat of plaster over the walls,
vaults, etc. than in full-blown bareitity.
that plaster *could* have been given a Faux Ashlar treatment, as well --at a
modest increase in cost.
and even where there was decent stone available, painting nice, uniform
"squared stones" on the bits like vaults (groin, tunnel or rib) would have
"dressed up" the whole appearance considerably.
as i mentioned previously, the Cistercians (of whom George has spoken) would
be a case apart --though we might well ask whether even Faux Ashlar might have
been considered an unwanted Distraction to Bernard's generation, or even its
immediate sucessor.
to digress a bit from the Focus of this thread (pre-gothic practice), the
traces of Faux Ashlar which are still detectable in the cathedral of Chartres
are, i believe, limited to the vaults (though the decorative keystones/bosses
were also picked out in colors).
there the masonry is --more or less-- "regular," though not nearly as much so
as the F.M. would leave it (there's your "idealisation" at work, perhaps).
*light* might also have been a consideration --"blocks" outlined in red on a
white background would lighten up the place (which was already considerably
darkened by the colored glass) considerably.
finally, the middlevils might well have thought that bareitity in stone walls
and ceilings was, simply, an inappropriate sign of unfinishedisity; and, any
Port in a Storm, preferred, at the least, a F.M. treatment to nothing at all.
still, i'm yet to be convinced that figurative fresco painting (including
suchlike things as trompe d'oeil "curtains") was, by far, the rule in most all
pre-gothic buildings, of whatever size or significance.
and, i'll Quibbleize on that Front the rest of the year, if necessary.
c
**********************************************************************
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
|