Renaissance-Christians=???
knobl...@bvu.edu
I was sitting in my Renaissance Art Class the other day wondering what
the art world would be like without the conception of Christianity,
and for that matter and more specifically, the Catholic Church. What
other religion spent so much glorifying itself. Although the specific
reasons for this central subject during this era of art are varied, I
question what would these artists have painted, sculpted, and
glorified without the Christian religion?
I agree that the hundreds of thousands of pieces of artwork depicting
scenes of the Christian faith and its followers are glorious. Artists
of this time were innovators in skill, materials, and form. And
something could also be said giving "inspiration" credit; biblical
stories are some of the most moving ever written.
I then attempt to recall if any other world religion spent an equal
amount of wealth for places of worship, decoration, and commemeration.
I can breifly picture gold sculptures of the Buddha or examples of art
from Asian countries depicting ancient miracles. Am I incorrect in
making the statement that Christian art dominates any other of the
world's existing religions?
I myself am Christian. (Not Catholic, if it makes a difference.) But
as I walked through the splender of a place such as St. Peter's
Basillica, and literally a hundred other European cathedrals, I
questioned the need for such excess decoration in a place of worship.
Personally, I find worshiping God enough satisfaction that I don't
need an elaborate alter, bronze pilliars, high domes, and marble
sculptures to remind me of how fortunate I am to be a Christian.
Personal feelings aside, I again then try to imagine what Renaissance
and eventually Baroque artists (or equivilants of the time) would have
done with themselves without having commissions from the church? What
subject would have taken its place? Who would the paintings and
sculptures be of? Where would we even go to view these masterpieces?
Interesting thoughts, seeking others opinions. (Don't worry Dennis,
I'm still listening in class.)
Still Contemplating,
Betsy Knoblock
Buena Vista University
Art and Communication Major
Charles Eicher
In article <1997May1.0...@bvu.edu>, knobl...@bvu.edu wrote:
> I was sitting in my Renaissance Art Class the other day wondering what
> the art world would be like without the conception of Christianity,
> and for that matter and more specifically, the Catholic Church. What
> other religion spent so much glorifying itself. Although the specific
> reasons for this central subject during this era of art are varied, I
> question what would these artists have painted, sculpted, and
> glorified without the Christian religion?
You really should study some Eastern art.. It is quite interesting to see
what these artists produced as art inspired by several vastly different
religions (taoism, buddhism, shinto, etc).. It is refreshing to see art
produced under a completely different set of rules.. And some of the rules,
we can never know. Sometimes I look at a convoluted Jomon pot, or the
complex pattern on a Sung bronze, and I stare at it for a long time, and I
think to myself, "What in the WORLD was this artist thinking of, when he
made this artwork?!?!"
> I agree that the hundreds of thousands of pieces of artwork depicting
> scenes of the Christian faith and its followers are glorious. Artists
> of this time were innovators in skill, materials, and form. And
> something could also be said giving "inspiration" credit; biblical
> stories are some of the most moving ever written.
>
> I then attempt to recall if any other world religion spent an equal
> amount of wealth for places of worship, decoration, and commemeration.
The Pyramids of Egypt spring to mind. Also, the recently discovered 'army'
of terra cotta figures unearthed in China, at the tomb of an emperor..
> I can breifly picture gold sculptures of the Buddha or examples of art
> from Asian countries depicting ancient miracles. Am I incorrect in
> making the statement that Christian art dominates any other of the
> world's existing religions?
I'm not sure what that last sentence meant, could you rephrase that in the
form of a question? :)
Anyway, sure there are monumental works.. Some of my favorite are the
wooden temples in Japan. Some of these structures were the largest wooden
buildings in the world at that time. But that isn't the most amazing part..
These buildings were built like huge 3D jigsaw puzzles, with very complex
wooden frames. Every 30 years or so, the buildings were taken apart piece
by piece, each part was inspected for damage, and rotted wooden parts were
replaced with freshly cut pieces. And then the whole building was built
from the ground up, on an alternate site. Every 30 years, they built it all
over again.
> I myself am Christian. (Not Catholic, if it makes a difference.) But
> as I walked through the splender of a place such as St. Peter's
> Basillica, and literally a hundred other European cathedrals, I
> questioned the need for such excess decoration in a place of worship.
> Personally, I find worshiping God enough satisfaction that I don't
> need an elaborate alter, bronze pilliars, high domes, and marble
> sculptures to remind me of how fortunate I am to be a Christian.
Personally, the baroque cathedrals strike me as tacky, and renaissance art
(taken as a whole) just doesn't do much for me. But then, I'm NOT a
christian, I'm a buddhist. Christian imagery just doesn't communicate to
me. Maybe that's why I specialized in Asian art history.. There is a whole
world of thoughts and theories. Only a small percentage of it was produced
by christians.
> Personal feelings aside, I again then try to imagine what Renaissance
> and eventually Baroque artists (or equivilants of the time) would have
> done with themselves without having commissions from the church? What
> subject would have taken its place? Who would the paintings and
> sculptures be of? Where would we even go to view these masterpieces?
My own personal and religious opinions aside, I believe there is an common
set of problems that underly the human condition, they have not changed
much since ancient history. By studying history, you can generally see this
pattern under all artworks, but with vastly different expressions, due to
the temporary societal conditions. I'm not sure how you're specifically
learning art history, but I considered the study of the renaissance as a
test case, since it is usually the first thing that art students are
expected to deal with in depth: how do you look beneath the surface of a
whole genre of artworks, at the motivations of the artists, his relation to
his world, despite our obvious detachment from these artworks and the
society they were created in. Once you learn to deal with that, you are
prepared to look at pretty much any other era or genre of art using the
same analytical thinking.
> Interesting thoughts, seeking others opinions. (Don't worry Dennis,
> I'm still listening in class.)
The problem is not in finding the answers, it is in asking the right
questions (even if you don't raise your hand in class and express them).
These are fairly good questions, keep at it.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
to...@vianet.net.au
Betsy,
Have you considered the caves of Atjanta in India, Chichen Itza in
Mexico, Lascaux in France, Rock paintings in Australia or even the tombs
of the Pharoahs? These works of art are in hommage to the gods of those
people. The only difference is the art work was done for love of the god
rather than for money.
The Renaissance began the concept of paying artists for religious icons.
When the Protestant churches did not commission decoration of their
churches, the patronage shifted to the wealthy merchants.
Commercialism in art was established and continues.
Jonathan Clift
>
>
>I was sitting in my Renaissance Art Class the other day wondering what
>the art world would be like without the conception of Christianity,
>and for that matter and more specifically, the Catholic Church. What
>other religion spent so much glorifying itself. Although the specific
>reasons for this central subject during this era of art are varied, I
>question what would these artists have painted, sculpted, and
>glorified without the Christian religion?
>
They painted pictures on other than religious themes, didn't they? How
about Roman and Greek mythology? Venus rising from the waves, and that
kind of thing. After all, the renaissance was re-discovering the
classical, even if they did have a funny idea about what this actually
was. Then there were the portraits of individuals and families. Okay,
they're meant to be seen as benefactors glorifying God, but it's a short
step to being just a portrait.
>I agree that the hundreds of thousands of pieces of artwork depicting
>scenes of the Christian faith and its followers are glorious. Artists
>of this time were innovators in skill, materials, and form. And
>something could also be said giving "inspiration" credit; biblical
>stories are some of the most moving ever written.
>
I too think some of these pictures are wonderful, although obviously I
don't understand them in their original context. Some artists were
innovators, the rest probably learnt from them, and did the best they
could. It seems to me that human nature and ability doesn't change much,
regardless of era.
>I then attempt to recall if any other world religion spent an equal
>amount of wealth for places of worship, decoration, and commemeration.
>I can breifly picture gold sculptures of the Buddha or examples of art
>from Asian countries depicting ancient miracles. Am I incorrect in
>making the statement that Christian art dominates any other of the
>world's existing religions?
>
If you mean equal as a proportion of what the particular society had to
spend, then I'd say yes, but this is only a guess.
I think there are a couple of reasons why it appears to dominate. One is
to do with your own cultural heritage. This heritage looks to Western
art, and particulary focuses on European culture. Another reason is that
Christianity has always been more individualistic than many other major
religions, and it accommodated the distinctive work of individual
artists better than most. A further reason might be that Islam
proscribes the depiction of human form (I'm not on very sure ground
here, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), so there isn't a
competing body of work in the same, highly visible form (their art was
based on pattern - something we might dismiss as decoration).
>I myself am Christian. (Not Catholic, if it makes a difference.) But
>as I walked through the splender of a place such as St. Peter's
>Basillica, and literally a hundred other European cathedrals, I
>questioned the need for such excess decoration in a place of worship.
>Personally, I find worshiping God enough satisfaction that I don't
>need an elaborate alter, bronze pilliars, high domes, and marble
>sculptures to remind me of how fortunate I am to be a Christian.
>
I'm not a Christian, though having grown up in a Christian culture many
of my ideas and beliefs stem from this source.
This difference of opinion was evident at the time, with the more
northern countries of Europe taking a long time to pick-up the ideas
emanating from the south, and then only in a muted form.
>Personal feelings aside, I again then try to imagine what Renaissance
>and eventually Baroque artists (or equivilants of the time) would have
>done with themselves without having commissions from the church? What
>subject would have taken its place? Who would the paintings and
>sculptures be of? Where would we even go to view these masterpieces?
>
I think that the painting and sculptures would have either been
portraits of the people who were prepared to pay for them, or subjects
they were interested in (hunting and warfare are two that immediately
come to mind).
>Interesting thoughts, seeking others opinions. (Don't worry Dennis,
>I'm still listening in class.)
Don't think I'm going to do Dennis out of a job, am I?
However, you're welcome to my opinions - hope they're of some use.
>Still Contemplating,
>Betsy Knoblock
>Buena Vista University
>Art and Communication Major
>
--
Jonathan Clift
Judy867
knobl...@bvu.edu wrote:
>I again try to imagine what Renaissance and eventually Baroque artists
would >have done with themselves without having commissions from the
Church? What >subject would have taken its place?
I think a key to this may be found in looking at their drawings---done in
less formal manner than paintings, they seem often to reveal more of the
Renaissance artist's personality. Michelangelo in his drawings of course
did the figure, very often on topics like the labors of Hercules and
other pagan type subjects. Fra Bartolomeo has a series of landscape
drawings that apparently play no known role in the evolution of his
paintings, and seem to have been done for pleasure--he shows a lot of
interest in geometric forms in his many drawings of farmhouses and
convents in natural settings. Leonardo Da Vinci drew a couple of
wonderful domestic scene types of the Madonna and Child with Cat, and
later subsistuted a more appropriate lamb in its place. He of course made
a wide variety of drawings on phenomena which expressed what he was
currently interested in. There's probably more examples like these, but
I think their drawings give a lot more insight into their characters than
the commissioned paintings. -Judy
JRothen318
Just one slight correction to some comments about renaissance art and
christianity. It was long before the renaissance that christianity used
art as central medium for expressing the faith. The Byzantine Empire was
home to a host of artists and craftsmen who produced enduring masterpieces
and these date back to 9th c. and before (6th c. for Haga Sophia). Just
thought this is worth mentioning as western orientation (there's an
oxymoron) has creeped into our thinking about history of art.
Daisy May
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>, cei...@inav.net says...
>The problem is not in finding the answers, it is in asking the right
>questions (even if you don't raise your hand in class and express them).
>These are fairly good questions, keep at it.
Right on (for once ;->) Charles. What I think has been overlooked
so far in this discussion is the fact that there is a tremendous
amount of art work that was done for purely decorative purposes
in all ages and by all cultures. I point out just my own limited
experiences traveling the Greco-Roman-Mid-Eastern world. Look
at Roman Baths, for instance. One wonderful example of the
purely decorative are the figures of bathing beauties in bikinis
long before the 'modern' world ever dreamed up that word to
describe bathing attire. When in Sicily, I saw on the floor of
a Roman spa that had long ago been destroyed by eruptions
the mosaic portraits of young maidens cavorting in bikinis.
Then there are the ornamental decorations in the ancient
palaces scattered about the Mediterranean isles and shores
where nature was replicated in mural form on the inside walls
with wonderous plants and animals as the motif. A stroll
through the streets of Pompeii is another example. I used
the mosaic of a dog growling fiercely on the sidewalk entrance
to a private residence in one of my own art works. In Latin
the phrase that went with the dog was "Cavec ad em" or something
similar (sp?) -- meaning "Beware of Him" (the dog). D.M.