Old and New

Essay 5b:

Old And New

Question: Could the art of the Gothic Period be concidered "new" and if so, could geography have been a factor and, what else could have contributed to it?

Part 1:

Summary: I found that this question was to focus in on the relations the Gothic Art had to prior cultures art. Not only did I find "new" development as the question asks but also work greatly inspired by prior cultural techniques.

Reason: This question was to help find the connections between Gothic Artwork to other developed works.

Purpose: This was question seemed to focus the student ( myself) into not just believing that cultures died.

Direction: I had honestly though prior to reading about this time period that art had "died" off, as if the "greats" did no pass it down, or that they just progressed through history without so much as setting eyes on the works of the Greeks and Romans.

Impressions: Looking through the imagines, especially in the textbook, i was pretty amazed at some of the work. I had thought them to be more "simplified", but I quickly noticed the complexities that had taken shape in the Gothic Period.

Part 2:

The Gothic Period of art could, through a dictionary term, be concidered "new". As stated by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "new" means "having recently come into existence" (www.merriam-webster.com ). Is this a good enough word to discribe the Gothic Period though? Through some research, one would argue otherwise. Inherited would be a better word choice.

Not only did the Northern Europeans inherit the qualities of their artwork, but they often were influenced by prior cultures artwork which aided in creating the uniquness. These works included architecture, painting, sculpture, stained-glass work, and book illumination.

Figure 16-5 p.497. Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Paris.
 



Schematic Drawning : Chartres Cathedral p.499

Currently in both Figure 16-5 and of the schematic drawning, there is evidence of romanesque architecture. In basic design they both keep to the Romanesque ideal of a long central nave with a west facing entry portal. However the Gothic style gives way to a more elaborated facade, flying buttresses and a tall main spire. It was no mistake that this happened though. The development of architecture was due to the where it was being constructed. "Within 100 years, an estimated 2700 Gothic churches, shimmering with stained glass and encrusted with sculpture, were built in the Ile-de-France region alone" (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.492). Bishops, Abbots, and Clergy collected taxes as well as made rounds with relics to procure enough money to build these amazing works of architecture. They also were able to bring many craftsmen together this way as well. Artisans that would be skilled in metalworking, masonry, stained-glass, and sculpture. It generated in influx of people from all around Europe to obtain work. People came from as far as Italy to produce such wonderful places. These people also brought influence.

In a side note, it seems absolutely amazing, and ingenius that they would make the churches face west. As the rising sun shown through the marvelous stained glass it would coat the entire nave, very possibly full of a pilgrimage. This would no doutedly leave the people with a sense of wonder, beauty, and the feeling of "God". Such an amazing spectical.



Fig. 16-1 :Scenes From Genesis; From the Good Samaritan Window (Notre-Dame; Chartes). p.491

Stained-glass were amazing creations of art work. They were commonly built/crafted at the same time the Masons were building. These elegant windows were yet another example of inherited ideas. Glass work was already a well know trade in southern Europe. And the creation of mosaics was as well. Bringing the two together was a costly process (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.497).  It would seem that Roman influence came as well. Each panel was painted with incredible draperies, as well as emphasis on th emotion of the face. For the smaller scenes it was bold lines that create the emphasis.

Fig 16-16 Reims Cathedral, West Facade. p.506

Sculpture was also a marvelous feat in the facades and exterior of the churches. An excellent example of inherited artwork are these two scenes. To the left Gabriel tells Mary the news of her becoming the Mother of God, to the right Mary tells her cousin Elizabeth, who is pregnant with St. John the baptist, the news. In comparison the figures are different in complexities. It also shows the timeline in which they were created. From the left, Gabriel was the earilest to be created and is show with the exagerated "goo-goo" eyes and smile. While to the right of him, Mary, was created later as she displays a more realistic eye. And finally the the scene on the right, was done by probably a third artist. They are covered in Roman technique: the heavy drapery, the representation of age between Mary and then to Elizabeth, and finally their Contrapposto stance as they shift their weight (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.506).

Fig 16-28 Shrine of Three Kings p.520

A combination of metalwork and sculpture, the Shrine of Three Kings was created in the Rhine River Valley region. "Ancient Romans had built camps and cities in this area, and Classical influence lingered on through the Middle Ages" (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.520). the idea of Roman realism, and Byzantine influence were incredibly prevenlent in this area. In this piece, each character is their own, they each have all seperate expressions and are all peering off into different directions.

Fig. 16-29 St. Maurice p.521.

This figure also showed the Roman realism. St. Maurice was an Egyptian commander in the Roman army. "Detailing rendering of his costume of chain mail and riveted leather," and also his skin color (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.521). Roman influence in the region inspired the artist of this statue to give him the complexion that he truely had as an Egyptian.

Fig 16-31 Nicola Pisano Pulpit p.522

Finally, the Nicola Pisano Pulpit. Italy should have been called the melting pot. This piece of art could almost be seen as multiple creators due to the inspiriations of the many cultures. From the bottom, the lions catch the eye, the texture of the manes and stout round bodies could almost seem eastern Asian in influence. Above them are the pillars. These are very close to the Corinthian Order of pillars,with the Rosette capitals and tapered colums. The archways between those seem of Byzantine influence. Around those and above are the inlayed figures of Saints and people in the dipiction of Christ. These both take the Roman style along with the works of Christianity. Their realism and natural setting convey the idea of pathos to the onlookers of the piece (Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, Michael Cothren p.524).

In conclusion, the artwork of the gothic period was very influential of region and geography. Without the  age of Churches artisans would not have come together in the flocks that they did. Also in may of the regions, Roman realism was still around to influence them. They may not have had the classical training but they could inherit the ideas that the classical works had shown. In a way the works were "new". They were pieces and structures that were never seen before, however the styles were not concieved out of thin air. Not much in the way of art can really be concidered new, just an innovation on the current ideas. Without the expansion of such much culture the Gothic Period would be as sad as the Dark ages and their artwork.

Truth and Beauty

Eassy 3b

Truth And Beauty

THE QUESTION: Using specific art references, why did Greeks concider "beauty" to be the same as "truth" and how different was this philosophy from that of the Romans.

Part One

SUMMARY: in selecting this topic question i already had envisions of the differences in Greek and Roman artwork. I also had a very good idea of what greek artwork was and what it meant to the culture. unfortunately i did not have that same mentality towards the Romans.

REASON: personally it's a comparison of the greeks and romans. Artwork isnt just something fancy that is displayed ( well for some it is ) it is a means of showing a particular truth ( whether is is truthful or not is another question). It was a nice way to see that Romans didn't exactly take everything from the Greeks but branched off of their ideas, they did not continue along the same path but another.

PURPOSE: same as the reason in this case? I mean it seems it was to understand the culture through their artwork and why they used it.

DIRECTION: I gained a new opinion on Roman artwork. It may have the same characteristics of the Greeks but that is where it ends in many of the cases.

IMPRESSIONS: my aha was remembering that i had to write this in the span of a few days. But really I find art interesting and it says alot about the history of a culture. I think many people seem to look back at Greek and Roman as the "true" realism.

Part Two

       Realism is typically valued on how life-like a piece of art work is. Much of realism people first think of are Greek and Roman artwork. Ironic because for one, it truely was as if a bit of life is being stored within the piece, where as the other, wished there was.
       In Greek artwork for one they show us, humanism, rationalism and idealism (Stokstad 117). Since their early classical age, there seemed to be an incredible spread of these "ism's". They are even more apparant in their art work.
       As a young artist myself I look to thses not just as splendid pieces of art, but as an inspiration on how style. Greeks werent trying to just recreate what they may or maynot have seen in front of them. A teacher once told me "draw what you see." Those were the greatest arrangement of words that had ever ventured through my ears. It was a freedom to develop a syle in which reality could then be produced from it. realism was not just how accurately the lines fell on the page, but how well you could depict what it meant to everything around it. That is what the Greeks identified as beauty.
       Their works of art aren't just a beautiful representation or recreation of them. They were the appriecatation of the subject. They seemed to be able to reveal the beauty in the subject and inject a life into their art work instead of trying to find life in it.
       An example would be "Warrior", (Stokstad 126).


"Warrior"
Bronze Statue with bone and glass eyes, silver teeth, and copper lips and nipples. 460-450BCE
http://culturedart.blogspot.com
 

       "The Warrior reveals a striking balance between the idealized smoothness of "perfected" anatomy conforming to Early Classical standards and the reproduction of details observed from nature (Stokstad 125)." Beauty was around the Greeks. Beauty could be defined as a pebble, because it may play a role in their life. The Warrior above may represent many things in terms of power and stature of the Greek military but, it shows beauty. Taking this ordinary figure and emblishing it; with the addition of the bone and glass it is as if the man is staring out through time. But that doesn't mean every scupture with those eyes are all the same. In seeing the beauty in this man and figure, he or she found it adamante to portray the facial features in different materials. It is interesting that so many things may be communicated through a few muscles in the face alone before anyone even speaks a word.
      Whereas the same piece from Rome shows something completely different.

Head of A Man (Traditionally Known as "Brutus")
Bronze, eyes of painted ivory 300BCE
http://www.bluffton.edu

       Although the same style is achieved here, Romans beauty in death. Almost in the same sence of the Egyptians. The character may not have been a good or ruler but they were created to have a likeness (Stokstad 171). It wasn't nessecarily the beauty in the figure anymore but what they represented in the past. It showed who they were in life. It wasn't about the beauty about the subject but to inform people of the subject.
       This also can be seen in their pottery as well.


Dionysos With Maenads
Black figure on amphora. Ceramic. 540BCE
http://www.dipity.com
 

        This Greek Amphora displays maenads, worshippers of Dionysos, interacting with the greek god of wine. "The encounter between humans and a god appear to be a joyful, celebratory occasion (Stokstad 117)." Even though this piece curves it shows such perfect perspective on the human body; although taken from any other angle they would appear deformed and stretched. The artist didn't care though, because they seemed to have the picture show an embodiment of life.
       whereas the Romans displayed stories.

The Ficoroni Cista
Bronze, etched figures. 350-300BCE
http://www.emforster.info

This is an artistic piece, telling a Greek story. There was no essence of life to be shown in this piece.
       Amazingly over the course of time and the change from Greek to Romans in power in the mediterranian shows a large difference in thinking. Greeks drew what they saw, whereas Romans drew what should be. It may have been truth but it was an ugly realism that didn't display life but told that once a life.