[log in to unmask] wrote:
>....I liked what little I'd read by Pseudo-Dionysius (in particular, his
_Mystica Theologia_), so, perhaps I should have said, "ALAS, who has
"thoroughly debunked" Panofsky's assertion?"?
>Duc Thi DeBurg Dau
i haven't kept up with the literature, but i'm pretty sure that it is not the
seudo-denny and his works who has been "debunked" --thoroughly" or otherwise--
but rather panofsky's rather broad and over-reaching picture of the primacy of
that saint's writings in the formation of the personality of abbot suger --or
at least in the formation of that part of the latter's personality which was
most engaged in the patronage of artistic undertakings in his abbey, which was
art historian panofsky's chief concern in his writings about suger.
the "debunking," in recent decades, of this idea of the primacy of the
writings of the (supposed) patron saint of Saint-Denis in the thoughts of
"his" abbot should be seen as part of a broader re-evaluation by art
historians of the origins and emergance of the Gothic Style (particularly
gothic architecture) and, particularly, the role of suger (or "Saint Suger,"
as he had virtually become in the art historical literature, largely thanks to
the work of panofsky, marcel aubert and others) in that process.
the recent biography of suger by Lindy Grant --herself an art historian, but a
very unusual one, who is interested in and capable of dealing with purely
historical matters and sources-- might be a good place to start
to get a handle on the last 40 or so years' scholarly work in this area.
her book in itself is something of a reflection of the current state of
affairs, placing as it does the artistic work of the abbot in a *much* broader
context than would have been/was the case in panofsky's time (circa 1950).
best to all from here,
christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
|