Painted stained-glass
Afropea
something that might be of interest. This comes from Marilyn Stokstad's
"Medieval Art"--
<<Grisaille, that is, clear glass painted with geometric patterns or
foliage--became increasingly popular in northeastern France in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. Grisaille had been used by Suger's artist at St.
Denis and was even approved of by the Cistercians. When windows had to be
glazed rapidly and economically, it had been used in the great cathedrals. In
the later years of the thirteenth century, however, artists and patrons chose
grisaille glass to complement interiors enriched with tracery and sculpture.
Artists in Champagne and Burgundy combined the traditional techniques of
glazing by inserting stained-glass panels into grisaille windows, and this
mixed technique was chosen for the windows at St. Urbain. The colored panels,
surrounded by delicately patterned light, satisfied the desire for stain glass
while they increased the amount of light in the interior.
The discovery that silver oxide could produce a wide variety of shades of
yellow revolutionized the craft and the aesthetic requirements of the glaziers.
Silver stain had the further advantage of being able to be painted on the
glass; therefore, the amount of leading could be reduced, and fewer dark lines
broke up the surface of the window. The development of flashed glass, in which
one color could be coated with another to lighten, darken, or change the
original color, made further variation possible. New, brighter colors could be
made easily--pinks by coating clearer glass with ruby red, or brilliant greens
from blue glass flashed with yellow. Pale silvery whites and lemony golds
replaced the deep-colored light which had made twelfth-and thirteenth-century
interiors so mysterious. The spacious, well lit, and richly decorated
interiors of the late Rayonnant style provided in turn a new impetus for
independent sculpture and painting.>>
Eve
A Tsar Is Born
Now if only someone would explain why the technologically primitive glass of
the 13th century is so glorious and the technologically brilliant glass that
followed (into the present day) is so mediocre, we'd have something....
Jean Coeur de Lapin
atsar...@hotmail.com
Mark Stafford
I did mention something I'd come across about this in a post to the original
thread, here's the relevant bit again:
"Although in another way the glass has changed with time, - the glass that
is
produced has become much duller. Since the renaissance we've simply got too
good at making glass, there are less bubbles and flaws, we make solid reds
instead of trying to dilute red antique and forming multiple layers of red
and clear glass - modern glass just doesn't 'glow' in the same way because
of this, the light isn't held -giving a luminous quality, - still new
techniques in flashing and staining with silver compounds give more modern
windows their own beauty, "
Oh, and I agree, - a fascinating post - thanks Afropea.
Mark.
"A Tsar Is Born" <ench...@herodotus.com> wrote in message
news:3b55b...@news.starnetinc.com...
A Tsar Is Born
"Mark Stafford" <sb14...@wolmail.nl> wrote in message
news:9j6v9k$510$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> Hi,
>
> I did mention something I'd come across about this in a post to the
original
> thread, here's the relevant bit again:
>
> "Although in another way the glass has changed with time, - the glass that
> is
> produced has become much duller. Since the renaissance we've simply got
too
> good at making glass, there are less bubbles and flaws, we make solid reds
> instead of trying to dilute red antique and forming multiple layers of red
> and clear glass - modern glass just doesn't 'glow' in the same way because
> of this, the light isn't held -giving a luminous quality, - still new
> techniques in flashing and staining with silver compounds give more modern
> windows their own beauty, "
Oh. That DOES explain matters a bit better!
It wasn't broke, so they fixed it.
Does this mean that one COULD re-create the glass of Chartres and the
Sainte-Chapelle, only it would be far more expensive and time-consuming? But
they DO know how it could be done?
Thanks, Mark.
Jazzman797
>Does this mean that one COULD re-create the glass of Chartres and the
>Sainte-Chapelle, only it would be far more expensive and time-consuming? But
>they DO know how it could be done?
>
>Thanks, Mark.
That's my question, too. It was my understanding the medieval/gothic formula
for creating the beautiful stained-glass had been lost and modern technology
had not found a method to recreate the same marvelous colors.
Rowena
Sherilyn
Didn't early stained glass have to be stained in the mix? I understand that
we now have techniques of surface-bonding colored glass to clear glass by
etching with a strong acid solvent (hydrofluoric acid, for instance),
thus giving great control over the luminosity of the finished product. We
also now have vastly more sophisticated dying techniques. This doesn't mean
that a modern stained glass artist would be able to reproduce the effects in
Chartres and other medieval buildings, however, because they're produced by
a combination of illumination, architecture, and in part at least, the
spiritual significance of the building. Obviously any competent modern
curator of a medieval building would want to keep the original
glass, if only to provide a talking point for the "gl*ss fl*ws"
enthusiasts. ;)
--
Sherilyn
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not
send me unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail.
MJ
Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> a écrit dans le message :
slrn9lk1g2....@pegasus.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > >had not found a method to recreate the same marvelous colors.
>
> Didn't early stained glass have to be stained in the mix? I understand
that
> we now have techniques of surface-bonding colored glass to clear glass by
> etching with a strong acid solvent (hydrofluoric acid, for instance),
> thus giving great control over the luminosity of the finished product. We
> also now have vastly more sophisticated dying techniques. This doesn't
mean
> that a modern stained glass artist would be able to reproduce the effects
in
> Chartres and other medieval buildings, however, because they're produced
by
> a combination of illumination, architecture, and in part at least, the
> spiritual significance of the building. Obviously any competent modern
> curator of a medieval building would want to keep the original
> glass, if only to provide a talking point for the "gl*ss fl*ws"
> enthusiasts. ;)
> --
More or less we have been able to recreate the medieval stained-glass
(stained in the mix...) since the mid 19th century. The technical issues are
known by medieval treatises (like theophile's one)
About one third of the glasses of the Sainte-Chapelle was remade during the
19th century, and it
is not that awful. It's a few years I've not been there, but as far as I
remember, it's very hard to see the difference between the older and the
more recent glasses.
During the 19th century, it seems the 16th century stained-glasses were
fashionable and in many old or more recent church (at least in northern
France), you can find imitations.
As far as I am concerned, I can see the difference between an original 16th
century glass and these 19th century imitation at the 1st sight. I guess
it's because the 19th century glass surface is "flater" (and the light
effect
thus more simple). But even at that time, they could have done "better".
if you can read french you may read things by Louis Grodecki / Catherine
Brisac : they wrote two big books : le vitrail roman, le vitrail gothique
(club du livre) ) which are very precise syntheses with many beautiful
pictures. Catherine Brisac also wrote a little book, "Le vitrail" (cerf).
it is much less exhaustive concerning the middle-age but gives interesting
informations about technical matters.
MJ