medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
> Ah, but this drawing
http://www.mondimedievali.net/Edifici/Puglia/tran10.jpg
> departs from convention in so many ways that it's hard to consider it as a
conventional plan. It's not labelled as a plan
well, it's not "labeled" as anything, except "tran10.jpg", which is rather
cryptic, to say the least.
> and I only called it one because that was the term you had used.
but i assure you that i only used it because it was the appropriate term to
use for what is clearly a plan --a simple case of Lack of Imagination on my
part, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea grosso culpa.
>It's a schematic drawing
o.k., if you like, "a schematic drawing 'showing the relative positions of the
parts of a building, or of any one floor of a building, as projected upon a
horizontal plane' (OED: "PLAN").
> showing the outline and supports of the nave of the upper church in relation
to the two crypts below; it's plan-like only in that it indicates the location
of structural elements.
viday soupra.
>A real plan would not superimpose,
au contraire, ma frere, archeological "plans" frequently superimpose the
various levels of campaigns or habitation which are found one upon the other
in virtually all sites which have any significant history, providing that
information is available and is appropriate to the purpose of the plan (i.e.,
in a specialised monograph or archeological report, as opposed to, say, a
tourist guidebook).
> would use the same conventions in representing the walls, etc. of each of
the building's levels (shown in separate sections),
mmmmm..... the different "levels" of walls, etc. are virtually always
distinguished from one another by different "conventions" --solid lines,
dotted lines, shading, hatching, even coloring.
the whole point of the exercise is to convey complex information in a clear
and easily legible manner, after all, and that *demands* different graphic
"conventions" be used.
for example, the complex superimposition of the early buildings on the site of
Canterbury cathedral:
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/ca/timeline/saxon/canterbury/cantplan.gif
ditto, with a different set of graphic conventions used to differentiate the
various building levels:
http://www.hillside.co.uk/arch/cathedral/plan.gif (note the absence of
stairways)
both of which, though rather complex and somewhat difficult to read, are
considerably clearer and easier to comprehend than the chaotic actuality on
the ground as seen in a photograph :
http://www.hillside.co.uk/arch/cathedral/photo.jpg
>and would show the building's stairways.
if they were present at ground level(s), yes.
yet another flaw in this particular 'plan', perhaps. or not, depending upon
whether or not the stairways are significant (with that crypt, i assume that
they are).
or, as Robert Burns would put it: a Plan is a Plan is a Plan.
best from here,
c
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:37 pm
> Subject: Re: [M-R] Trani columns (WAS: Double columns)
> > From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > On Thursday, June 2, 2005, at 10:20 am, chris crockett wrote:
> >
> > >> this particular articulation is not shown on the plan
> >
> > >> http://www.mondimedievali.net/Edifici/Puglia/tran10.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > > Probably because the plan in question superimposes on the nave of
> > theupper church that of the underlying Mary crypt, shown here:
> >
> > > http://www.mondimedievali.net/Edifici/Puglia/tran09.jpg
> >
> >
> >http://www.trani.org/trani/turismo/itinerari/immaginidatabase/dcp_0423.jpg
> >
> >
> > mmmm.... i'm afraid that Dog won't Hunt, John.
> >
> > face it: it's just a bad (as in "defective", not necessarily
> > "evil") Plan.
> >
> > the normal, accepted convention when drawing a gound plan is to
show the vertical members of the building in their most distinctive form
which, in this case, would be to show the elements of the main arcade as
double columns(i.e., as twin circles on the plan) ; not the solid
rectangles which we have here which, strictly speaking, suggest that there are
unarticulated piersrectangular in plan makng up the main arcade of the nave.
**********************************************************************
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
|