 |
 |
Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]> wrote: The "Art of the Western World" video series chapter on R and G does a nice job of pointing out the blurring of the two styles and time frames, haven't seen it, and, as a general rule i hate like the devil to expose myself to anything which might disturb my preconceived notions. but, thanks for the thought. >although some egregious errors mar the whole. as i suggested re any survey of this complex material, "errors" are nearly inevitable --though "egregious" ones are perhaps a bit much. basic problem is that suveys, by their nature, try and drw a nice smooth line through a group of chosen points. the more points (monuments) you allow into your schema, the more wierd the line gets. that this video survey even broached the issue at all is to its credit, it would seem. is that the one with Bill >As for the term "Gothic," I believe in its day it was called "opus francigenum" or "opus modernum." right. the basic book on this historiographic problem remains, i believe, Paul Frankl's massive _The Gothic: Sources and Interpretations_, which is getting a bit long in the tooth, but has been recenly reprinted. the first term speaks to the geographical origin of the "style" as it was perceived by those outside of "France"; the second to the relative position of the "style" in the chronological pecking order. significant thing about both, to me, is that the "style" was perceived by contemporaries as something distinct from other opuses. >...in Latin or in English, would do nicely in place of Gothic. and how would you english "francigenum"? "The French Style"?? needs a *lot* of qualification, that one. >As for a term to fit both, how about...medieval? inclusive maybe, but just a *wee* bit broad, perhaps. >MG cc ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1