What structure epitomizes Gothic aesthetics?
William Orth
cathedral? Something else?
I'm interested in hearing any opinions on this subject. Also, what
makes a structure/form "Gothic?"
Bryn Fraser
Orth <ort...@muohio.edu> writes
Pointy arches... as opposed to Norman...
--
Bryn Fraser
The sound of distant gunfire is the government blowing its toes off...
erilar
ort...@muohio.edu (William Orth) wrote:
pointed arches are the obvious generic answer
By the way, not all Gothic cathedrals are in France.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
William Black
"Bryn Fraser" <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2336p9EL...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <6405153f.03051...@posting.google.com>, William
> Orth <ort...@muohio.edu> writes
> >Is it the cathedral at Reims? The abbey at St-Denis? The Notre-Dame
> >cathedral? Something else?
> >
> >I'm interested in hearing any opinions on this subject. Also, what
> >makes a structure/form "Gothic?"
>
> Pointy arches... as opposed to Norman...
You beat me to it.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Matthew Harley
>
> By the way, not all Gothic cathedrals are in France.
No, but AFAIK the style originated in Northern France -
inspired, perhaps, by structures seen by French crusaders in
the Holy Land.
Saint Denis, conceived by Abbé Suger, is said to have been
the first "Gothic" structure.
Funny enough it was not a cathedral until the 19th cenetury.
Matt Harley
Sophia
> In article <6405153f.03051...@posting.google.com>,
> ort...@muohio.edu (William Orth) wrote:
>
>
>>Is it the cathedral at Reims? The abbey at St-Denis? The Notre-Dame
>>cathedral? Something else?
>>
>>I'm interested in hearing any opinions on this subject. Also, what
>>makes a structure/form "Gothic?"
>
>
> pointed arches are the obvious generic answer
Yes :) Pointy vaults too of course, advanced ribbing in vaults, bigger
windows, tracery, greater heights (not in England), walls and windows
as 'filler' around a flexible arch-based structure which takes most of
the weight (if we are talking classic churches), micro-architecture as
detail...
>
> By the way, not all Gothic cathedrals are in France.
For me, the most sublime examples of gothic archictecture are the
octagon at Ely, Kloster Eberbach, the cloisters at Gloucester and
Laycock and Castel del Monte. The cleverest and most fun is the
scissor arch at Wells, built to repair a threatened collapse. All
personal opinion of course.
Sophia
Faith in fabulousness
>
William Orth
I don't believe I made that assertion, did I? York Minster and the
Canterbury Cathedral are two favorites, however, that I negelected to
mention.
BTW: Pointed arches would collapse without flying buttresses!
Sophia
No, not all of them. The majority of English gothic churches don't
have them, for instance.
Sophia
Brant Gibbard
>BTW: Pointed arches would collapse without flying buttresses!
Thereby becoming fallen arches.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@ca.inter.net
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~bgibbard/gen/
Toronto, ON
Paul J Gans
>Sophia
>Faith in fabulousness
Many agree with you.
The arch vaulting leading down to columnar supports allows
an enormous amount of open space in the walls. Romanesque
churches seem to have solid walls interspersed with the
rare window. Gothic churches seem to be windows with
columns as dividers.
St. Louis's chapel in Paris has an enormous amount of glass
in the walls. I'd guess that (not counting buildings like
the Crystal Palace) it was not until after WWII and the
building of the Lever Building in New York (on Park Avenue
just north of Grand Central Station) that the amount of
glass in proportion to the wall area was equalled.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I don't believe that the point counts in this regard. After
all the Greeks had a triangular "relieving space" above
stone lintels more than a thousand years earlier. They
were in effect arches to relieve the pressure on the
horizontal lintel.
Romanesque buildings had very thick walls with wide footings
in order to avoid the wall collapse. Gothic walls were much
thinner.
The problem in any building is that the weight of the roof
(unless it is flat) can be resolved into two perpendicular
components. One carries weight down, the other carries it
outward. It is the latter component that causes the trouble.
---- Paul J. Gans
Dick Wisan
>
>William Orth <ort...@muohio.edu> writes
>>
>>I'm interested in hearing any opinions on this subject. Also, what
>>makes a structure/form "Gothic?"
>
>Pointy arches... as opposed to Norman...
Holes in the walls? (opposed to Romanesque)
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Frank Martin
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:b9v73...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Sophia
The piers and arches in a true gothic chuch form the (flexible,
load-bearing) skeleton which supports the roof. All the rest is just
filler to look cool, provide abutment and keep the rain out. In a
romanesque building the weight rests on the walls which therefore have
to have smaller holes in. In some ways high gothic construction
resembles modern steel framed buildings; it was a whole different way
of thinking about structure.
>
> St. Louis's chapel in Paris has an enormous amount of glass
> in the walls. I'd guess that (not counting buildings like
> the Crystal Palace) it was not until after WWII and the
> building of the Lever Building in New York (on Park Avenue
> just north of Grand Central Station) that the amount of
> glass in proportion to the wall area was equalled.
Some English perpendicular buildings achieve a similar ratio of wall
to glass, for instance Henry VII's chapel at Westminster which is
probably the highest achievement of English masonry in the middle ages
(there the arches actually pass through the vault and it almost hangs
from them rather than resting on them). St George's, Windsor, Kings
College or the choir at Gloucester offer similar 'box of light'
effects. Of course, with these flattish, jigsaw vaults we are a long
way in time and technology from the pioneers of the Ile de France.
Sophia
Faith in fabulousness
Martin Reboul
Sophia wrote...
> erilar wrote:
> > William Orth wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is it the cathedral at Reims? The abbey at St-Denis? The Notre-Dame
> >>cathedral? Something else?
> >>
> >>I'm interested in hearing any opinions on this subject. Also, what
> >>makes a structure/form "Gothic?"
> >
> >
> > pointed arches are the obvious generic answer
>
> Yes :) Pointy vaults too of course, advanced ribbing in vaults, bigger
> windows, tracery, greater heights (not in England), walls and windows
> as 'filler' around a flexible arch-based structure which takes most of
> the weight (if we are talking classic churches), micro-architecture as
> detail...
>
> >
> > By the way, not all Gothic cathedrals are in France.
>
> For me, the most sublime examples of gothic archictecture are the
> octagon at Ely, Kloster Eberbach, the cloisters at Gloucester and
> Laycock and Castel del Monte. The cleverest and most fun is the
> scissor arch at Wells, built to repair a threatened collapse. All
> personal opinion of course.
You forgot the vault of Julius Beer in Highgate Old Cemetary! In fact, much
of HOC...
Sophia
>
>
> You forgot the vault of Julius Beer in Highgate Old Cemetary! In fact, much
> of HOC...
Yep, kind of out of period. I also didn't mention big hair, pointy
boots, lace, corsets and the aesthetic importance, nay necessity, of
black...
Soph (fully qualified goth)
Faith in fabulousness
>
>
>
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
[...]
>> Many agree with you.
>>
>> The arch vaulting leading down to columnar supports allows
>> an enormous amount of open space in the walls. Romanesque
>> churches seem to have solid walls interspersed with the
>> rare window. Gothic churches seem to be windows with
>> columns as dividers.
>The piers and arches in a true gothic chuch form the (flexible,
>load-bearing) skeleton which supports the roof. All the rest is just
>filler to look cool, provide abutment and keep the rain out. In a
>romanesque building the weight rests on the walls which therefore have
>to have smaller holes in. In some ways high gothic construction
>resembles modern steel framed buildings; it was a whole different way
>of thinking about structure.
I agree. It is amazing.
I once took a group of students to Paris. It rapidly became
clear that they, used to steel frame buildings, were not
particularly impressed by what they saw at St. Chapelle
or Notre Dame. It was only after a bit of explanation
that they understood what they were looking at.
This is something the guide books, etc., need to stress.
>> St. Louis's chapel in Paris has an enormous amount of glass
>> in the walls. I'd guess that (not counting buildings like
>> the Crystal Palace) it was not until after WWII and the
>> building of the Lever Building in New York (on Park Avenue
>> just north of Grand Central Station) that the amount of
>> glass in proportion to the wall area was equalled.
>Some English perpendicular buildings achieve a similar ratio of wall
>to glass, for instance Henry VII's chapel at Westminster which is
>probably the highest achievement of English masonry in the middle ages
>(there the arches actually pass through the vault and it almost hangs
>from them rather than resting on them). St George's, Windsor, Kings
>College or the choir at Gloucester offer similar 'box of light'
>effects. Of course, with these flattish, jigsaw vaults we are a long
>way in time and technology from the pioneers of the Ile de France.
True. What has always blown me away is that the Gothic seems
to spring from nowhere. It is probably my lack of education
in architecture that makes it seem so to me. But I see
Romanesque and then Gothic with no "transitional forms".
They had geniuses in those days.
Probably why we call them the "dark ages".... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>
>>
>> You forgot the vault of Julius Beer in Highgate Old Cemetary! In fact, much
>> of HOC...
>Yep, kind of out of period. I also didn't mention big hair, pointy
>boots, lace, corsets and the aesthetic importance, nay necessity, of
>black...
Well, why didn't you?
And you'd like New York. Black is that standard color
here, though the style isn't quite Gothic. More Gothamic
if you take my meaning... ;-)
>Soph (fully qualified goth)
>Faith in fabulousness
----- Paul J. Gans (fully qualified geezer)
David Read
<ga...@panix.com> writes
<snip>
>True. What has always blown me away is that the Gothic seems
>to spring from nowhere. It is probably my lack of education
>in architecture that makes it seem so to me. But I see
>Romanesque and then Gothic with no "transitional forms".
Nikolaus Pevsner identified the three architectural features which
define the Gothic style as being the pointed arch, the flying buttress,
and rib-vaulting. All three can be found in buildings which predate
Suger's abbey of St Denis, but not in combination with each other. It
was the bringing together of these features for the first time at St
Denis in the mid-12th century that first defined what we know as the
Gothic style. Pevsner concluded that the technical advantages, while
present, of these features have been "vastly overestimated" and that it
was the aesthetics of Gothic style that are "infinitely more
significant."
cheers,
--
David Read
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Harley) wrote:
> No, but AFAIK the style originated in Northern France -
> inspired, perhaps, by structures seen by French crusaders in
> the Holy Land.
And was developed furthest in England as the French went whoring
after a new architectural fad after only few hundred years.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Sophia
> Sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>>You forgot the vault of Julius Beer in Highgate Old Cemetary! In fact, much
>>>of HOC...
>>
>
>>Yep, kind of out of period. I also didn't mention big hair, pointy
>>boots, lace, corsets and the aesthetic importance, nay necessity, of
>>black...
>
>
> Well, why didn't you?
Everyone on SHM knows I am of the gothic persusion, especially after
the happily departed Knickers went on about it so.
>
> And you'd like New York. Black is that standard color
> here, though the style isn't quite Gothic. More Gothamic
> if you take my meaning... ;-)
I intend to come some day, I have many friends who now live there. Is
it true about the steam rising through the floor?
>
>
>
>>Soph (fully qualified goth)
>>Faith in fabulousness
>
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans (fully qualified geezer)
I didn't know they had that word in the US. I hope it doesn't mean the
same thing as here.
Soph x
>
>
>
Sophia
> In article <3EC2ADD8...@eircom.net>, har...@eircom.net (Matthew
> Harley) wrote:
>
>
>>No, but AFAIK the style originated in Northern France -
>>inspired, perhaps, by structures seen by French crusaders in
>>the Holy Land.
>
>
> And was developed furthest in England as the French went whoring
> after a new architectural fad after only few hundred years.
Hardly; the French kept elements of the gothic style, particularly in
vernacular architecture, long after we in England had dumped it for
misunderstood Paladianism.
I'm not sure that one can say that the English developed gothic to its
highest, every western European nation has something cool to show -
look at the triumphs of Spanish gothic with its moorish twist for
instance.
>
Sophia
Faith in fabulousness
Jerome Morrow
Gothic architecture?
erilar
ort...@muohio.edu (William Orth) wrote:
Not always, they discovered later.
William Orth
> >
>
> No, not all of them. The majority of English gothic churches don't
> have them, for instance.
Is this because most English gothic churches aren't as tall as their
continental cousins? Or did the English masons find some other way to
dissipate roof pressure?
Paul J Gans
Hmm... Is Pevsner by any chance an art historian rather
than an architect?
While I agree that the pointed (as opposed to round) arch
is primarily a stylistic advance I don't see buttressing
that way. It matters. Indeed, I've heard (in a seminar
a few years back) that a large windstorm of the once in a
century variety hit Chartres while the cathedral was under
construction. The resulting damage led the master mason
to add another higher arch to the existing buttressing
to support the upper parts of the walls.
Of course, the walls could have been made enormously thick
with concomitant increase in cost.
As for the arching, sure, one could find a substitute. But
all together the elements added up to something quite new.
At least in my opinion.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:
[...]
>> ----- Paul J. Gans (fully qualified geezer)
>I didn't know they had that word in the US. I hope it doesn't mean the
>same thing as here.
'Old man; old fart' with implications of eccentricity.
Brian
David Read
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>
>Hmm... Is Pevsner by any chance an art historian rather
>than an architect?
>
>While I agree that the pointed (as opposed to round) arch
>is primarily a stylistic advance I don't see buttressing
>that way. It matters. Indeed, I've heard (in a seminar
>a few years back) that a large windstorm of the once in a
>century variety hit Chartres while the cathedral was under
>construction. The resulting damage led the master mason
>to add another higher arch to the existing buttressing
>to support the upper parts of the walls.
The point Pevsner is making that it was not the Gothic style per se that
was technologically revolutionary, but rather its aesthetics, because
"style is not an aggregate of features but an integral whole". That is,
he is downplaying any emphasis that had been previously placed on
supposedly innovative structural features that can be found in Gothic
architecture, because they can all be found individually in earlier
buildings.
Thus, of the abbey of St Denis;-
"There are few buildings in Europe so revolutionary in their
conception and so rapid and unhesitating in their execution. Four
years in an exceptionally short time in the twelfth century for
rebuilding the choir of a large abbey church. Whoever designed the
choir of St Denis, one can safely say, invented the Gothic style,
although Gothic features had existed before, scattered here and
there, and, in the centre of France, the provinces around St Denis
even developed with a certain consistency."
_An Outline of European Architecture_ 7th edition
>
>Of course, the walls could have been made enormously thick
>with concomitant increase in cost.
>
>As for the arching, sure, one could find a substitute. But
>all together the elements added up to something quite new.
>At least in my opinion.
Stylistically, yes.
cheers,
--
David Read
David Read
<da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <ba1mof$4k0$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> writes
>>
>>Hmm... Is Pevsner by any chance an art historian rather
>>than an architect?
>>
>Pevsner was an art historian, best known for his work on architecture.
>
>>While I agree that the pointed (as opposed to round) arch
>>is primarily a stylistic advance I don't see buttressing
>>that way. It matters. Indeed, I've heard (in a seminar
>>a few years back) that a large windstorm of the once in a
>>century variety hit Chartres while the cathedral was under
>>construction. The resulting damage led the master mason
>>to add another higher arch to the existing buttressing
>>to support the upper parts of the walls.
>
>The point Pevsner is making that it was not the Gothic style per se that
>was technologically revolutionary, but rather its aesthetics, because
>"style is not an aggregate of features but an integral whole". That is,
>he is downplaying any emphasis that had been previously placed on
>supposedly innovative structural features that can be found in Gothic
>architecture, because they can all be found individually in earlier
>buildings.
That should read "The point Pevsner is making is that it is not Gothic
construction... " etc.
E. C. Lee
had I been here earlier I would have probably said the same thing.
This is the view that was taught when I was studying art and
architectural history.
The Gothic style always struck me as a kind of cultural imperialism as
well as a fashion.
Eve
Paul J Gans
Well...
Let's see. The automobile has certainly revolutionized
travel but every element of it existed in some earlier
form. The carriage, the motor, the gearing, the lamps,
etc., etc.
But I'd not argue that the auto is only an esthetic advance.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Read
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Well...
>
>Let's see. The automobile has certainly revolutionized
>travel but every element of it existed in some earlier
>form. The carriage, the motor, the gearing, the lamps,
>etc., etc.
>
>But I'd not argue that the auto is only an esthetic advance.
I replied to your post where you wrote:-
What has always blown me away is that the Gothic seems
to spring from nowhere. It is probably my lack of education
in architecture that makes it seem so to me. But I see
Romanesque and then Gothic with no "transitional forms".
Eve's education in architecture is certainly greater than mine. (My copy
of Pevsner's _An Outline of European Architecture_ dates from my
schooldays when I was in the school's architectural society).
As Pevsner points out, the individual elements that form the basis of
Gothic style did not "spring from nowhere", and there are indeed some
transitional forms.
Pevsner is not arguing that Gothic style was *only* an aesthetic
advance, but that its "aesthetic advantages are infinitely more
significant for an understanding of Gothic style than whatever technical
advantages the use of ribs, flying buttresses, and pointed arches may
have meant". Rather he is countering what he regards as the over-
inflated claims of the great 19th century French architect Viollet-le-
Duc "and his innumerable followers" for the technical advantages of
Gothic style, the individual elements of which, as Pevsner points out,
predated the construction of St Denis.
For example, in his discussion of the rib-vaults used in the Romanesque
Durham cathedral, Pevsner writes:-
"Now the most remarkable fact about the vaults of Durham is that rib-
vaults as against ribless groin-vaults are accepted as one of the
_leitmotivs_ of the Gothic style. Their structural advantages,
chiefly the possibility of erecting the ribs and other arches first
and independently on a separate centering and then filling in the
cells between the ribs in a lighter material, will be discussed
later. These advantages, as John Bilson has proved, were already
fully realised at Durham, yet the style of Durham is not therefore
Gothic. Technical innovations never make a new style, though they
can be welcomed and made use of by one." p.66
I suspect, although Pevsner is not clear in his book here, that his
criticisms of Viollet-le-Duc's super-enthusiasm for the Gothic are a
20th century re-examination of a 19th century Gothic revivalist's view
of medieval Gothic. Viollet-le-Duc had been deeply involved in the 19th
century Gothic revival, and in the repair of significant French medieval
Gothic buildings, and he was a true innovator in the use of steel in the
construction of new buildings.
cheers,
--
David Read
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ort...@muohio.edu (William Orth) wrote:
> Or did the English masons find some other way to
> dissipate roof pressure?
Roofs work like any arch structure. Part of the vertical load is
converted to a horizontal one. The load is transferred to the
abutments. There are two components to the load. Vertical and
Horizontal forming a resultant that has to be contained in the
structure. The steeper the pitch of the roof the less is the
Horizontal component thus moving the lateral component closer to
vertical.
Flying buttresses are there to resist the lateral component. They are
effectively half arches designed to load the wall in the opposite
direction to the roof. This moves the final resultant forces so they
are within the structure. If the resultant is close to vertical anyway
all you ned to do is thicken the wall between window bays.
What really impresses me is that this was understood by medieval
builders without any real method of calculating stresses before
building. They did not always get this right, I remember an OU program
stating that one cathedral had an extra level added to the flying
buttresses fifty to a hundred years after the rest of the structure
was built.
Sophia
>
> What really impresses me is that this was understood by medieval
> builders without any real method of calculating stresses before
> building. They did not always get this right, I remember an OU program
> stating that one cathedral had an extra level added to the flying
> buttresses fifty to a hundred years after the rest of the structure
> was built.
Lots of them did fall down or suffer major structural failure though...
Sophia
Paul J Gans
I read that all the time, but with one major exception, I know
of few that fell down in their first 400 years or so. Several
did show signs of structural failure, often via settling[*], but
again only after the passage of a lot of years.
---- Paul J. Gans
[*] The most recent example being York Minster which had to have
extensive (and amazing) structural work done on its foundations
recently.
David C Pugh
news:ba6v3n$s3$4...@reader1.panix.com...
> Sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What really impresses me is that this was understood by medieval
> >> builders without any real method of calculating stresses before
> >> building. They did not always get this right, I remember an OU program
> >> stating that one cathedral had an extra level added to the flying
> >> buttresses fifty to a hundred years after the rest of the structure
> >> was built.
>
> >Lots of them did fall down or suffer major structural failure though...
>
> I read that all the time, but with one major exception, I know
> of few that fell down in their first 400 years or so. Several
> did show signs of structural failure, often via settling[*], but
> again only after the passage of a lot of years.
>
Is your major exception Beauvais?
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Sophia
> Sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lots of them did fall down or suffer major structural failure though...
>
>
> I read that all the time, but with one major exception, I know
> of few that fell down in their first 400 years or so. Several
> did show signs of structural failure, often via settling[*], but
> again only after the passage of a lot of years.
Ely's octagon is a result of one such collapse; there are other
examples such as the nave of Vale Royal Abbey (an ambitious royal
foundation with a huge church in high gothic style) which completely
fell down in 1360, 'the piers falling like uprooted trees' according
to a chronicler. The same problems were experienced by a number of
other great churches during the period, including one French cathedral
which fell during construction. Weakness and severe structural failure
of the crossing was also an issue for many large churches - one can
see for instance the stitching and large buttresses put up by the
monks at Fountains to fix this.
In the immediate post mediaeval period a number of important churches
still in use fell, like Llandaff Cathedral or Crowland Abbey, both
certainly within 400 years of construction. Collapses continued into
the 19th century - the spire of Chichester Cathedral fell as recently
as 1861.
Sophia
Faith in fabulousness
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ba6v3n$s3$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>> Sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> What really impresses me is that this was understood by medieval
>> >> builders without any real method of calculating stresses before
>> >> building. They did not always get this right, I remember an OU program
>> >> stating that one cathedral had an extra level added to the flying
>> >> buttresses fifty to a hundred years after the rest of the structure
>> >> was built.
>>
>> >Lots of them did fall down or suffer major structural failure though...
>>
>> I read that all the time, but with one major exception, I know
>> of few that fell down in their first 400 years or so. Several
>> did show signs of structural failure, often via settling[*], but
>> again only after the passage of a lot of years.
>>
> Is your major exception Beauvais?
Yes. It was, IIRC, never finished.
But that is what is to be expected from experiential engineering.
The advantage of theory is that it lets you predict limits.
So in general the medievals overbuilt, especially in stone cathedrals
and castles. Castles are generally in bad repair mainly because
they've had no maintainance for five or six hundred years.
Cathedrals in general have had maintainance. So what shows up
in cathedrals is damage due to foundation settling over a
thousand year period, slow shifts in wall alignment, etc.
York Minster is an excellent example.
Some romanesque structures have endured even longer, but they
were not as large as the gothic examples.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Lots of them did fall down or suffer major structural failure though...
>>
>> I read that all the time, but with one major exception, I know
>> of few that fell down in their first 400 years or so. Several
>> did show signs of structural failure, often via settling[*], but
>> again only after the passage of a lot of years.
>Ely's octagon is a result of one such collapse; there are other
>examples such as the nave of Vale Royal Abbey (an ambitious royal
>foundation with a huge church in high gothic style) which completely
>fell down in 1360, 'the piers falling like uprooted trees' according
>to a chronicler.
Those are good examples.
>The same problems were experienced by a number of
>other great churches during the period, including one French cathedral
>which fell during construction. Weakness and severe structural failure
>of the crossing was also an issue for many large churches - one can
>see for instance the stitching and large buttresses put up by the
>monks at Fountains to fix this.
That's another. But the problem was recognized and fixed.
That's what has to happen when one does empirical design
and there is almost no experience to guide the designer.
>In the immediate post mediaeval period a number of important churches
>still in use fell, like Llandaff Cathedral or Crowland Abbey, both
>certainly within 400 years of construction. Collapses continued into
>the 19th century - the spire of Chichester Cathedral fell as recently
>as 1861.
But certainly those don't count. They only look like disasters
because we have gotten used to the idea of stone as eternal.
Castles fell apart quickly without maintainance.
To really judge one would have to know why they fell. Some things
such as long term foundation settling were essentially impossible
for the medievals to judge in a given site. So some sites were
much better than others.
Slow shifting due to long term stress is another. It isn't
clear that this was understood in the Middle Ages.
And some were inadvisedly modified over time. That could lead
to serious problems.
If we start from the more realistic notion that nothing
lasts forever, the medieval cathedrals have turned out to be
among the most enduring monuments ever built by man.
Castles covered more ground. But many cathedral towers exceed
150 feet in height, a distance not often matched until modern
times. And in many cases the ratio of support wall to open
wall space is absolutely amazing considering that iron was
not used as a structural element[*].
----- Paul J. Gans
[*] Though in one case, IIRC, an iron structural support
was added to one French church in medieval times to counteract
a developing slow lean in one wall. I believe this was the
first major use of iron as a structural support.
Sophia
>
>>Ely's octagon is a result of one such collapse; there are other
>>examples such as the nave of Vale Royal Abbey (an ambitious royal
>>foundation with a huge church in high gothic style) which completely
>>fell down in 1360, 'the piers falling like uprooted trees' according
>>to a chronicler.
>
>
> Those are good examples.
There are a number of others. It wasn't exactly common, but such
happening were far from unheard of.
>
>
>>The same problems were experienced by a number of
>>other great churches during the period, including one French cathedral
>>which fell during construction. Weakness and severe structural failure
>>of the crossing was also an issue for many large churches - one can
>>see for instance the stitching and large buttresses put up by the
>>monks at Fountains to fix this.
>
>
> That's another. But the problem was recognized and fixed.
Well, they couldn't really avoid noticing the big hole in the wall.
Whether it was really fixed is something we can never know as King
Henry soon made the question moot. Such fixes happened a lot, cf Wells
and numerous abbey churches.
> That's what has to happen when one does empirical design
> and there is almost no experience to guide the designer.
>
>
>>In the immediate post mediaeval period a number of important churches
>>still in use fell, like Llandaff Cathedral or Crowland Abbey, both
>>certainly within 400 years of construction. Collapses continued into
>>the 19th century - the spire of Chichester Cathedral fell as recently
>>as 1861.
>
>
> But certainly those don't count. They only look like disasters
> because we have gotten used to the idea of stone as eternal.
They were certainlty viewed as disasters at the time and they are far
from unique. I don't really think you can say that they don't count:
they are within the specified time period and are evidence of major
structural failure, specifically of vaults, piers and crossing.
> Castles fell apart quickly without maintainance.
Some did, some didn't. It's important to rember that many castles
weren't that well built and the majority, particularly those which
belonged to the king or large lordships, suffered from poor
maintenance even while they were in use. Likewise, in England and
Wales at least, many were abandoned or at least derelict centuries
before the great churches of the same period. Also there's the matter
of collapse vs stone robbing and slighting.
>
> To really judge one would have to know why they fell. Some things
> such as long term foundation settling were essentially impossible
> for the medievals to judge in a given site. So some sites were
> much better than others.
>
> Slow shifting due to long term stress is another. It isn't
> clear that this was understood in the Middle Ages.
I'm not sure the precise reasons (which could possibly to discovered
on site and from surveys of the time) are that relevant; the fact is
they did, which is the point of this discussion. For what it's worth
Llandaff fell after a storm and Crowland just fell (though the north
aisle is still in use).
>
> And some were inadvisedly modified over time. That could lead
> to serious problems.
Trying to add towers comes to mind.
>
> If we start from the more realistic notion that nothing
> lasts forever, the medieval cathedrals have turned out to be
> among the most enduring monuments ever built by man.
When one compares what we have with what was built I'm not so sure -
it's only a small sample. Many have lasted rather well though, all
things considered.
>
> Castles covered more ground. But many cathedral towers exceed
> 150 feet in height, a distance not often matched until modern
> times. And in many cases the ratio of support wall to open
> wall space is absolutely amazing considering that iron was
> not used as a structural element[*].
Yes, they are an amazing achievement.
Sophia
gerold firl
> The Gothic style always struck me as a kind of cultural imperialism as
> well as a fashion.
"Cultural imperialism"? What do you mean?
Certainly gothic style appealed to the aesthetic sense of many, and it
spread widely through western Europe. I've always thought of that
propagation as more a matter of fashion than anything else; I'd be
interested in hearing about more imperialistic aspects.
- gerold
Bryn Fraser
firl <gerol...@yahoo.com> writes
In England and Scotland we do have to live with a great deal of
Faux-Gothic courtesy of Mr Pugin and his followers, sadly I grew up
believing it was the real thing and was most upset to discover it was
for the most part, an invention... I cannot speak for Europe but I am
suspicious...
--
Bryn Fraser
The sound of distant gunfire is the government blowing its toes off...
William Orth
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The Gothic style always struck me as a kind of cultural imperialism as
> > well as a fashion.
>
> "Cultural imperialism"? What do you mean?
I second this query -- sounds like an interesting thesis. E.C. Lee, do
you care to explain in more detail?
Bryn Fraser
Found this on my other machine. It may be mine or from an online
source... Apologies to anybody who may own it...
So why Gothic? Where did the use of the term "Gothic"come from? In the context of Pugin,
Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement Gothic does not mean what it suggests. It has
nothing to do with tribal migrations by people from the Baltic or any alleged styles of
Architecture or design for which they were responsible. It was a disparaging reference to the
12th century "French Style"of architecture and building of the middle ages. The term was first
used by a 16th century art critic Giorgio Vassari and was meant to imply that medieval
architecture was barbaric and tasteless - presumably when compared to the Classical style. The
term "Gothic" was immediately fashionable and soon used to describe all medieval design.
In England the Gothic style was divided into four periods by Thomas Rickman (1776-1841) in
his 1817 work "An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English Architecture from the
Conquest to the Reformation". Rickman, of King's College Chapel, Cambridge, labelled the
styles Norman, Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular. It must be noted that Pugin was
opposed to the Romanesque rounded arch of the Norman style and that to him the pointed
arch was the epitome of Christian architecture, its defining motif.
E. C. Lee
Sorry it took so long to get back. I'm having computer problems and
haven't really been checking SHM regularly. Someone had to write and
tell me that someone asked me a question!
The gothic style as we know, not just several distinguishing parts,
but the sum of those parts in a single somewhat cohesive style, this
was put together to promote the Capetian regime (and of course, for
the glory of God) by the Abbot Suger at St. Denis. This style, as a
cohesive form, spread with Capetian power.
In the beginning, one would more likely find Romanesque styles in
areas ruled by the Plantagenets. However, as the Capetian power and
prestige increased, so did the style associated with their government.
In some cases the buildings of these structures might have been
encouraged by the Capetian regime as they took over new territories,
in other cases it might have been an admiration or assimilation of the
style by others. In any case, it did suggest a dominance of French
taste in the aethetic matters of the time which paralleled their
political status.
Culturally France was on the ascendency. I don't believe that this
was due to aesthetic superiority, but because of their increased power
and prestige. Of course this was not only due to political changes,
but also the introduction of French culture to the rest of Europe via
the internationalism of the University of Paris. Philip Augustus gave
the University and its students numerous privileges--and I suspect
this was because he knew advantage in having cultural influence on the
future VIPS of Europe. There was also a thriving business in French
illuminated manuscripts--another industry which encourages the spread
of artistic ideals.
Of course, one could also mention that when France kicked out the
Southern troubadours, who then fled to Italy (where they influenced
poets such as Dante) this carried French cultural ideals to other
parts of Europe. But that was hardly intentional and clearly another
story!
Again, this is more my theory than anything else.
JMHO,
Eve
gerold firl
> So why Gothic? Where did the use of the term "Gothic"come from? In the context of Pugin,
> Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement Gothic does not mean what it suggests. It has
> nothing to do with tribal migrations by people from the Baltic or any alleged styles of
> Architecture or design for which they were responsible. It was a disparaging reference to the
> 12th century "French Style"of architecture and building of the middle ages. The term was first
> used by a 16th century art critic Giorgio Vassari and was meant to imply that medieval
> architecture was barbaric and tasteless - presumably when compared to the Classical style.
Yes - as I understand it, the term originated in Italy (though I
thought a little earlier, 15th C.) as a sort of cultural resistance to
this foreign fashion coming from north of the Alps. Using the term
"Gothic" expressed an unwillingness to accept an alien style which
could potentially supplant the native Italian tradition. Note that
Gothic only took root in Lombardy, and never spread any farther south
in Italy.
For these self-consciously superior Italians, Gothic style was seen as
an invasive threat, an affront to native pride, and an architectural
echo of the barbarian influx at the fall of the Roman Empire.
- gerold
gerold firl
> gerol...@yahoo.com (gerold firl) wrote in message news:<579d7686.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > The Gothic style always struck me as a kind of cultural imperialism as
> > > well as a fashion.
>
> > "Cultural imperialism"? What do you mean?
> >
> > Certainly gothic style appealed to the aesthetic sense of many, and it
> > spread widely through western Europe. I've always thought of that
> > propagation as more a matter of fashion than anything else; I'd be
> > interested in hearing about more imperialistic aspects.
> Sorry it took so long to get back. I'm having computer problems and
> haven't really been checking SHM regularly. Someone had to write and
> tell me that someone asked me a question!
NP - I appreciate the response.
> The gothic style as we know, not just several distinguishing parts,
> but the sum of those parts in a single somewhat cohesive style, this
> was put together to promote the Capetian regime (and of course, for
> the glory of God) by the Abbot Suger at St. Denis. This style, as a
> cohesive form, spread with Capetian power.
That makes sense - gothic structures were symbols of status and
wealth. When people saw Sugar's structure they wanted one too. Henry
III of England was claimed to have said, after seeing Ste. Chapelle,
that he'd like to "load it on a wagon and take it to London." (~1250)
The first gothic buildings were all built within the Capetian realm -
but that may have been primarily because of slow rates of information
transit and human travel.
> In the beginning, one would more likely find Romanesque styles in
> areas ruled by the Plantagenets. However, as the Capetian power and
> prestige increased, so did the style associated with their government.
A counter-example: when Canterbury cathedral burned down, in 1174, an
architectural competition was opened, to bid on the reconstruction.
The winner was a French builder, William of Sens, who had an
eye-popping proposal in the latest French style. It was to be the
first gothic structure in England, but as far as I can tell it was
prompted by purely aesthetic concerns.
> In some cases the buildings of these structures might have been
> encouraged by the Capetian regime as they took over new territories,
> in other cases it might have been an admiration or assimilation of the
> style by others. In any case, it did suggest a dominance of French
> taste in the aethetic matters of the time which paralleled their
> political status.
Agreed - perhaps we should say that the spread of gothic was an
example of the cutting-edge attraction of French style - French
literature (such as Arthurian romance and _chansons de geste_) were
also very popular in neighboring lands.
>
> Culturally France was on the ascendency. I don't believe that this
> was due to aesthetic superiority, but because of their increased power
> and prestige.
For me, some 8 centuries later, the aesthetic superiority of gothic is
quite perceptible. I still remember the first time I saw a gothic
structure (Koln cathedral, at the age of 12). I thought it was the
most beautiful building I'd ever seen. I extrapolate my experience to
other people (even if they did live 800 years ago) - which is why I
place the aesthetic above the political.
> Of course this was not only due to political changes,
> but also the introduction of French culture to the rest of Europe via
> the internationalism of the University of Paris. Philip Augustus gave
> the University and its students numerous privileges--and I suspect
> this was because he knew advantage in having cultural influence on the
> future VIPS of Europe. There was also a thriving business in French
> illuminated manuscripts--another industry which encourages the spread
> of artistic ideals.
Yes - the University of Paris was very influential in medieval Europe
- but couldn't that be a reflection of how sophisticated Parisian
culture was, relative to the rest of Europe, rather than a consequence
of French political and military power?
> Again, this is more my theory than anything else.
Interesting idea - you have a lot of faith in the power of the
political!
- gerold
Sophia
> Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aGnM6uK2...@finhall.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>>So why Gothic? Where did the use of the term "Gothic"come from? In the context of Pugin,
>>Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement Gothic does not mean what it suggests. It has
>>nothing to do with tribal migrations by people from the Baltic or any alleged styles of
>>Architecture or design for which they were responsible. It was a disparaging reference to the
>>12th century "French Style"of architecture and building of the middle ages. The term was first
>>used by a 16th century art critic Giorgio Vassari and was meant to imply that medieval
>>architecture was barbaric and tasteless - presumably when compared to the Classical style.
>
>
> Yes - as I understand it, the term originated in Italy (though I
> thought a little earlier, 15th C.) as a sort of cultural resistance to
> this foreign fashion coming from north of the Alps. Using the term
> "Gothic" expressed an unwillingness to accept an alien style which
> could potentially supplant the native Italian tradition. Note that
> Gothic only took root in Lombardy, and never spread any farther south
> in Italy.
Gothic detail is certainly found in other places in Italy, in
churches, castles and houses. There is a good reason for the relative
absence of high gothic churches in Italy other than culture though -
earthquakes.
>
Sophia
gerold firl
> gerold firl wrote:
> > Yes - as I understand it, the term originated in Italy (though I
> > thought a little earlier, 15th C.) as a sort of cultural resistance to
> > this foreign fashion coming from north of the Alps. Using the term
> > "Gothic" expressed an unwillingness to accept an alien style which
> > could potentially supplant the native Italian tradition. Note that
> > Gothic only took root in Lombardy, and never spread any farther south
> > in Italy.
>
> Gothic detail is certainly found in other places in Italy, in
> churches, castles and houses. There is a good reason for the relative
> absence of high gothic churches in Italy other than culture though -
> earthquakes.
Is that because the buildings fell down? Or were people reluctant to
build because they expected them to fail in an earthquake?
- gerold
E. C. Lee
those days. And the very people who did would probably be the ones
who'd most influence this sort of art.
> > In the beginning, one would more likely find Romanesque styles in
> > areas ruled by the Plantagenets. However, as the Capetian power and
> > prestige increased, so did the style associated with their government.
>
> A counter-example: when Canterbury cathedral burned down, in 1174, an
> architectural competition was opened, to bid on the reconstruction.
> The winner was a French builder, William of Sens, who had an
> eye-popping proposal in the latest French style. It was to be the
> first gothic structure in England, but as far as I can tell it was
> prompted by purely aesthetic concerns.
>
But this is the thing, aesthetics are not just the joy to the eye, but
the association that goes with it. It means more to say "the lastest
French style" than say "the latest style Latvian style". Why? What
associations make something from Capetian France more interesting than
being from somewhere else? There was things that distinguished it.
Capetian France had a lot going for it. A certain worldliness thanks
to the University. A growing wealth and power. Because of this Paris
attracted artisans looking for work and also made those with the
knowledge of the "new styles" more popular when they went for work in
other areas. I'm not saying that Gothic styles weren't beautiful,
impressive, etc. But IMHO there was more to it than that.
IMHO there was intention. Paris, the heartbeat of the Capetian
regime, was set up to be a marvel to other cities. Not an unusual
practice in history. In fact, a very common one. True of Florence,
true of Rome, true of Constantinople, etc. etc. The art of a
successful place not only enhances the beauty of that place, but it
become representative of what IS great about that place. The plan to
make the art of medieval Paris a success was so much a success that in
some ways the aura continues to the present. And this new style,
which was identified with Paris, with the Capetians, spread to their
other holdings, their newly increased holdings, and eventually became
popular as a sort of aesthetic "sphere of influence," even among their
enemies.
> > In some cases the buildings of these structures might have been
> > encouraged by the Capetian regime as they took over new territories,
> > in other cases it might have been an admiration or assimilation of the
> > style by others. In any case, it did suggest a dominance of French
> > taste in the aethetic matters of the time which paralleled their
> > political status.
>
> Agreed - perhaps we should say that the spread of gothic was an
> example of the cutting-edge attraction of French style - French
> literature (such as Arthurian romance and _chansons de geste_) were
> also very popular in neighboring lands.
> >
Yes, but as I said later in the post, that was a very different set of
circumstances. Not that you can't find political and cultural
factors in the literature, they just aren't the same ones.
> > Culturally France was on the ascendency. I don't believe that this
> > was due to aesthetic superiority, but because of their increased power
> > and prestige.
>
> For me, some 8 centuries later, the aesthetic superiority of gothic is
> quite perceptible. I still remember the first time I saw a gothic
> structure (Koln cathedral, at the age of 12). I thought it was the
> most beautiful building I'd ever seen. I extrapolate my experience to
> other people (even if they did live 800 years ago) - which is why I
> place the aesthetic above the political.
>
But it IS significant that you aren't living in the Middle Ages. You
love may love Gothic architecture and many people from that time loved
it, but maybe some of your reasons for loving aren't all the same.
Not everyone likes Gothic architecture. It's not aethetically
superior to everyone, so in the end it's not aethetically superior.
It's superiority is a subjective response. There were centuries that
despised the Gothic. They had their reasons. And had we not gone
through the periods of Romanticism and the neo-Gothic, etc. maybe
we'd look at it as something grotesque or fussy or old fashioned,
whatever. I'm sure there are many modernists who feel that way.
I don't find Gothic superior to other forms of architecture, but I do
find it stunning. I find Romanesque stunning as well. I have no
reason to choose one over the other. But in their times there were
reasons for choosing one over the other. And in time other styles
were chosen over Gothic. And there are reasons. If there was such a
thing as superiority in aestheics there would be no art history. Art
would eventually all be the same.
> > Of course this was not only due to political changes,
> > but also the introduction of French culture to the rest of Europe via
> > the internationalism of the University of Paris. Philip Augustus gave
> > the University and its students numerous privileges--and I suspect
> > this was because he knew advantage in having cultural influence on the
> > future VIPS of Europe. There was also a thriving business in French
> > illuminated manuscripts--another industry which encourages the spread
> > of artistic ideals.
>
> Yes - the University of Paris was very influential in medieval Europe
> - but couldn't that be a reflection of how sophisticated Parisian
> culture was, relative to the rest of Europe, rather than a consequence
> of French political and military power?
>
I think that this is intertwined. I think, for example, that Phillip
Augustus sponsored and encouraged the University to reflect well on
Paris and his France. I don't know enough about his predecessors, but
it wouldn't surprise me if this was also in their plans (eg. Suger and
St. Denis). And BTW, Parisian culture BECAME sophisticated around
this time. It wasn't at first and in the earlier years of the
University wasn't at all. In fact, it was somewhat of a dump!
Phillip Augustus was the first to even pave the streets.
> > Again, this is more my theory than anything else.
>
> Interesting idea - you have a lot of faith in the power of the
> political!
>
Nah. But I do think can have a significant effect on art, culture and
fashion.
JMHO,
Eve
E. C. Lee
was pressured to get it out in a hurry. My apologies for all the
various typing and grammar errors. I think the basic idea came
across. If not, don't hesitate to ask me for corrections.
Eve
Frank Martin
This newsgroup, so backward looking, and failed to notice the New Gothic,
the Nouveaux Kitsches of the age, the New Dawn, the Religious Revival;
namely the inflatable portable storable Plastic Gothic Church.
There is a colour photo of this in a late edition of the Weekly Telegraph -
and everywhere else - and this portrays the Rev M Elfred (how Saxon!) inside
this puffed-up edifice, all PVC plastic of it, together with its pointed
Gothic genuine fake-coloured plastic glass, plastic steeple, electric blower
(in the outer Hebrides the parishioners will have to huff & puff, I suppose)
and VERY COMFORTABLE plastic pews. According to this rag the entire edifice
costs a mere 21750.00 pounds to buy, and 2000 pounds to rent! Lest gentle
members reading this turn green with envy, be assured that plastic
Synagogues and Mosques are on the drawing board. Now doubt a nautical
floating version will follow. Chartres, Ely, Notre Dame etc are now passé,
and can all be demolished for the stone and fittings, freeing those valuable
areas for car parks.
David
"Frank Martin" <gen...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:bap91p$v0d$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Tilmann Chladek
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote
[...]
>
> > The Gothic style always struck me as a kind of cultural imperialism as
> > well as a fashion.
>
> "Cultural imperialism"? What do you mean?
>
> Certainly gothic style appealed to the aesthetic sense of many, and it
> spread widely through western Europe. I've always thought of that
> propagation as more a matter of fashion than anything else; I'd be
> interested in hearing about more imperialistic aspects.
Well, one can argue (and it is being done) that in Southern France the
gothic style is the style of the Northern invaders. One famous example
is the cathedral St. Cecilia in Albi, constructed right after the
crusade against the "Albigeois" and very much looking like a oppressing
fortress.
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter bloss erfunden?
Infos dazu ueber <http://home.snafu.de/tilmann.chladek>
Tilmann Chladek
[...]
> Castles covered more ground. But many cathedral towers exceed
> 150 feet in height, a distance not often matched until modern
> times. And in many cases the ratio of support wall to open
> wall space is absolutely amazing considering that iron was
> not used as a structural element[*].
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> [*] Though in one case, IIRC, an iron structural support
> was added to one French church in medieval times to counteract
> a developing slow lean in one wall. I believe this was the
> first major use of iron as a structural support.
If I have understood the descriptions correctly there have been iron
anchors in the Carolingian octogon of Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle from the
beginning (around 800 AD) as a structural support [cf. Günther Binding,
Deutsche Königspfalzen. Von Karl dem Großen bis Friedrich II.
(765-1240), Primus Verlag GmbH, Darmstadt, 1997, ISBN 3-89678-016-6, pp.
82 ff.].