medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Thanks to Christopher for a very nice reponse to my rather heated
posting. Re my remarks on Gothic architecture in Florence, I did say
Gothic Architecture, and it is still true that there isn't much that
answers to that description in Florence (or Venice) from an
architctural point of view. As structures, all of these buiilding
have weight bearing walls, are not very tall (the Duomo esxcepted due
to its dome) and do not have flying buttresses. All of them are of
the basillican style, except of course, the Palazzo del Arte della
Lana, that has an interesting gothic portal. I don't have the time,
right now, to see what John has posted for use, but I imagine it will
be very usefull. Whether or not there is any art in Florence that we
can call Gothic is another question; and almost all of it has to do
with painting, not structures.
Since you now know Bannister Fletcher's work, you will note that he
neatly avoids the whole question by lumping the whole period into
_Late Medieval Italy_. During this same period the great Donatello
was busy creating his, sculpture, Brunlleschi not only finished the
dome on the Duomo and had begun Renaissance architecture with his
Ospedale degli innnocenti and capped it with the Pazzi Chapel. By
this time, Florence had developed an impressive vernacular literature
with Dante, Petrarch and Boccacio. Painting, where Gothic style
flourishes, is has been dramatically changed by Giotto, who paints
real people with faces that can (or could have been) identified as
real, living, people...probably donors to the work for hard cash) and
(again) Brunelleschi, who puts Gothic painting to rest with single
point perspective, best represented now on the south wall of Sta.
Maria Maggiore (which should have been included with the other
structures you mentione) by Maccio's Holy Trinity. I throw this stuff
in only to indicate that Florence, for whatever Gothic art it had, was
distintly different from what was going on up north. So, what to do?
Your attachments on Venice illustrate the problem very well.
Certainly the Doge's palace is not Gothic, whatever anyone may call
it. It is absolutely regular in its rational, Renaissance, design and
would be an absolute bore without the "lollipop Gothic" arcade that
wraps around it. It's interior is a virtual orgy of lavish decoations
and painting that very far from anything one might call Gothic. By
contrast, the court-yard withing has a lavis gothic arch surrounding
the steps which lead up to the interior. Add to that some
ornamentation on St. Marks Cathedral that is very Gothic in flavor,
while the building itself if Byzantine, and the problem becomes clear.
The "lollipop Gothic" arcade is typical of Venetian dometic
architecture of the period (vid. Ca' d'oro et alia). It is referred
to by many authorities as Venetian Gothic. I won't quarrel.
Also, the detail you attached (last attachment) is another
delightful anomaly. The decorations surrounding the paintins are
Gothic style. The paintings are done in single-point perspective. I
don't recognize this and would appreciate your telling me what it is.
Anyway, enough of this. More later about Florence, especially
Brunelleschi's dome which is, probably, the boldest achievement in
Gothic engineering, ever,.....but, of course, it's Renaissance.
Yrs, tom ault
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:27:43 -0500
Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
>culture
>
>From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Monday, January 3, 2005, at 11:22 am, chris crockett wrote
>(quoting
> and responding to Tom Ault):
>
>>>Incidentally, the Renaissance began in a place where "gothic"
> architecturewas very little in evidence.
>
>>> ?
>
>>> news to me.
>
>> To me, too.
>
>
> you left out
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/basi01.jpg
>
> complete with graffiti.
>
> many of the examples of Italian "Gothic" you so kindly offer
>demonstrate --to
> all who might have eyes to see-- that the "style" frequently
>(usually?) took
> quite radically different forms there than it did in its own
>_patrie_, most
> often, it would seem, unable to fully overcome the entrenched
>traditions of
> Italy's "romanesque" and/or Byzantine past.
>
> eg., there is really nothing whatever "Gothic" about the exterior of
>this
> building
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/basi01.jpg
>
> save for some of the more or less "ornamental" details which your
>other views
> of it showed.
>
> it appears to be thoroughly "Romano-Byzantine", with a touch of
>Muslim (those
> minarets!!) thrown in for good measure, heywhynot.
>
> yet, the interior
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/int11.jpg
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/panor.jpg
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/ben.jpg
>
> is acceptably "Gothic", save for that curious reluctance amongst the
> Eyetalians to exploit the structural possibilities of the style to
>open up
> their walls to the light
>
> http://www.basilicadelsanto.org/gfx/visita/pre.jpg
>
> for whatever reasons we've mentioned before --or others which might
>be closer
> to the Truth.
>
> while the distinction between the Constructs "Romanesque" and
>"Gothic" is
> extremely dodgy, especially in France in the early and middle
>decades of the
> 12th c., no such "blurring" exists on the interface between the
>"Gothic" and
> "Renaissance" styles, at least in Architecture.
>
> the deliberate rejection of the "Gothic" taste in "decoration" (and
>even, in
> most instances in Italy at least, in *structure*) in favor of the
>adoption of
> a *radically* different form language (the "Classical") marks
>something rather
> unusual in the history of art.
>
> the closest thing to this phenomenon i can think of in western art
>was at the
> very beginning of the "middle ages", when, in figure style, the
>"Hellenistic
> Canon" was overthrown in favor of the adoption of the "sub-antique",
>which
> transformation was given Official sanction during the reign of
>Constantine I.
>
> however, in figure style the transition between the "Gothic" (or,
>especially
> in Italy, the "Italo-Byzantine") and "Renaissance" styles was much
>more
> nuanced and gradual than that which we see in architecture.
>
> for those (starting with, at least, Vasari) who wish to see a very
>radical
> break with the past in figure style, Giotto wants to be seen as the
>watershed
> figure ; but a closer look at his work in the context of the
>Italo-Byzantine
> milieu from which he came makes the idea of this clean-cut
>divergence more
> than somewhat problematic --though it might not quite rise to the
>level of
> "construct" which we see in the Romanesque/Gothic divide.
>
>>So the following was a good thought:
>
>>> http://davidhewson.typepad.com/photos/venice/doge.jpg
>
> thanks, we try.
>
> 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
**********************************************************************
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
|