the story of the Grail
cliff
only briefly. Why? What is the role of the Grail?
Hari Seldon
"cliff" <chen...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:f3cdd435.02120...@posting.google.com...
> the story is titled after the Holy Grail; yet, the Grail appears in it
> only briefly. Why? What is the role of the Grail?
Duhh. not sure that a paganist like me should answer this... But to my best
knowledge.
A Roman soldier threw a spear in JC, drops of (most holy) blood also flowed
in this Grail. Tales and Myths about this Grail said it would cure disease,
give immortality (or was that only in the Indiana Jones movie? ;-) etc.
Later - in Mallory Morte d'Arthur - the knights set to search this Grail,
which had to do with the comtenplative feelings of the 11 / 12th century
tales (compare the song of Roland with Arthur).
Fair enough?
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
Paul J Gans
>Fair enough?
That's one grail story. There are others. The grail has
been, at one time or another a plate and a stone as well
as a cup. The stories around the grail are, of course,
an invention of western Europe.
---- Paul J. Gans
fledermaus
> which had to do with the comtenplative feelings of the 11 / 12th century
> tales (compare the song of Roland with Arthur).
>
Their offspring carries the blood. More than one book has references
to this. A nice tale if not true. There is a legend of the Magdelene
settling in sw France with a child, usw.
Heather Jones
>
> the story is titled after the Holy Grail; yet, the Grail appears in it
> only briefly. Why? What is the role of the Grail?
It's that time of year again, isn't it.
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Simon Pugh
<ga...@panix.com> writes
Everyone knows the Holy Grail is at Nanteos Mansion in Wales. I've seen
it and it's made of wood.
Really :)
See:
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/nanteos.html
--
Simon Pugh
Remove X for email
Paul J Gans
Clearly you have not seen the work of that famous
archaeologist Indiana Jones. *He* found the True
Grail. I know this must be true because they made
a movie about it.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Paul J. Gans
--------------------
Hilarious!
Gans The Gullible....
Seriously, he constantly bad-mouths motion pictures ---- like any
left-wing academic in good standing ---- because they make so much
mazuma [gelt] and create so many problems for him.
But he accepts 15th Century paintings, purely artists' representations
of people and objects ---- as if they were engineering drawings of God's
Own Truth....
Hilarious!
Acid proof that Gans has no education or training in History ---- or
Historiography....
How Sweet It Is!
Yusuf B Gursey
: Everyone knows the Holy Grail is at Nanteos Mansion in Wales. I've seen
: it and it's made of wood.
: Really :)
: See:
: http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/nanteos.html
: --
: Simon Pugh
what is the current assesment of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (or was it the
opposite)? the idea that it really represents the "blood line" of Jesus?
D. Spencer Hines
However, some find it entertaining ---- as fantasy reading.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:H6KwK...@world.std.com...
David Debono
Oh well that sorts that one out then *smile*
Take care
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
chen...@hotmail.com (cliff) wrote:
> Why? What is the role of the Grail?
In most grail stories the grail is symbolic. The actual point is that
it can only be found by a 'pure' soul. The most important part of the
stories is the quest element.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Paul J Gans
It is nonsense. But it is nonsense that has enriched its
authors, so *they* are not the stupid ones.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote...
>
> > Why? What is the role of the Grail?
>
> In most grail stories the grail is symbolic. The actual point is that
> it can only be found by a 'pure' soul. The most important part of the
> stories is the quest element.
Blast! That's me out then...
The owner of the antique shop in Brighton must have been fibbing - I could
see it plain as day? I thought £50 was a bit cheap....
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:asj4sm$31t$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> That's one grail story. There are others. The grail has
> been, at one time or another a plate and a stone as well
> as a cup. The stories around the grail are, of course,
> an invention of western Europe.
There's a short essay about this in the front of Penguin Books 'Quest for
the Grail'
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Simon Pugh
<D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
>"I know this must be true because they made a movie about it."
>
>Paul J. Gans
>--------------------
>
>Hilarious!
>
>Gans The Gullible....
>
>Seriously, he constantly bad-mouths motion pictures ---- like any
>left-wing academic in good standing ---- because they make so much
>mazuma [gelt] and create so many problems for him.
>
>But he accepts 15th Century paintings, purely artists' representations
>of people and objects ---- as if they were engineering drawings of God's
>Own Truth....
Spencer raises the issue of the reliability of illustrations as
historical sources.
I'm thinking more medieval than renaissance, when artists were less
concerned with realism.
They are primary sources, but are they useful and how do we asses their
reliability?
Clearly they are not engineering drawings but surely they are still of
value?
Renia
>
> Spencer raises the issue of the reliability of illustrations as
> historical sources.
>
> I'm thinking more medieval than renaissance, when artists were less
> concerned with realism.
>
> They are primary sources, but are they useful and how do we asses their
> reliability?
>
> Clearly they are not engineering drawings but surely they are still of
> value?
I would say medieval art is useful as a primary source though, as with
any primary source, it is not without its problems.
Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile. Where a medieval
artist does not understand the complexities of a piece of machinery and
has only his memory to rely on, he would paint it as he remembered it,
not necessarily as it was. Thus, you would have the idea of a piece of
technology, but not necessarily an accurate representation of how it was
constructed.
In lieu of any other visual image, such as an artefact, medieval art has
its place in the realm of primary sources.
Renia
Simon Pugh
There was a thread on the medieval wheel cranes used in cathedral
building and we head that the remains of one of them can still be seen
in a cathedral, I don't remember where. On the face of it the
illustration in the thread was quite accurate.
I guess one problem is that they were much freer with scale then. What I
mean is that they would show a castle on a much smaller scale than the
people in it so you can see both clearly.
>
>In lieu of any other visual image, such as an artefact, medieval art
>has its place in the realm of primary sources.
>
>Renia
>
--
Paul J Gans
Yes. Ignore the loon. Pictures are not used as if they
were photographs. But they are still useful.
For instance, a picture showing a person (usually a man, by
the way) wearing eyeglasses is quite convincing evidence that
eyeglasses were in use by the time of the painting. Artists
rarely paint what is not yet invented.
Similarly illustrations of cannon, siege engines, etc., provide
dates by which the article must have been in use.
Art historians are fairly convinced that clothing shown in
medieval paintings represents clothing worn either at the
time the painting was created or that of a generation or
two earlier. There was no attempt to render folks in their
historical garb (and no way that could have been known to
the artist in general.)
However, beyond that pictures have their own internal logic.
This is often a logic shared with other artists. Again,
art historians have made great strides in deciphering this.
A trivial example is the identification of saints shown
in pictures. Each saint had one (or a few) attributes that
were commonly shown and served as clear identifications to
the contemporary viewer.
Another is the depiction of bishops. They are frequently
shown in vestments inappropriate for the non-religious
situation of the painting. However, they did serve to
identify them not only as bishops but often, in the details
of their dress, as particular individuals.
This is for the most part opaque to us as non-trained
observers. But all one need do is check the visual
"slang" and idioms in use today. We don't often consciously
note them. But they help us identify what is going on, though
they will likely be as opaque as brick to the casual observer
of the 28th century.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
More often the scale was due to the notion that "big" folks
should, in fact, be shown as "big folks". Thus the king
is big, peasants are small, and animals often very small.
We preserve some of this when we speak of "the big man" meaning
the boss.
Castles, unless they were the centerpiece of the illustration,
are less important than the people.
It is one of those visual cliches that has changed over the years.
My favorite modern example is the showing of ships under
sail in modern paintings with the banners and pendants
all streaming out in the wind toward the stern of the ship.
Of course, in a sailing ship they point the other way.
The modern cliche for speed came into being with the
steam train and (later) the automobile.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
radiographs ---- must be examined and critiqued, by competent, qualified
people, as carefully as any historical source ---- not just taken on
faith that the artist or photographer or cameraman got it right.
Visual representations can often be deceiving ---- and today, they can
be faked ---- as any intelligent person knows. Juries often have to be
reminded of this, attorney friends tell me, because folks are so
gullible and poorly educated that they think a photograph or video can't
lie, mislead or distort the truth ---- which is patently false.
Some naive folks have the feeling that "pictures speak for themselves."
It just isn't so ---- as any Real Historian ---- someone educated and
trained in History, well knows.
A Mediaeval Painting should be examined *just* as closely and be
subjected to *just* as rigorous a critique as any historical document
would be.
Gans has a propensity on his web pages ---- and in general ---- to be
far too casual and sloppy about this.
The worst case, as I've noted previously, is his hilarious example of
the ostensibly strangling Hippocampus pulling Neptune's mythical Sea
Chariot as some sort of proof-positive that the Romans strangled their
horses ---- Real Horses ---- the kind with four legs.
Yet, he still fails to see the ridiculousness of his example ---- indeed
the outright FRAUD and CHARLATANRY of it ---- and keeps it on his
WebPage. He pretends the photograph is of a Real Horse in a Roman
mosaic ---- not a Hippocampus.
No Real Mediaeval Historian ---- properly educated and trained in
History ---- would ever do such a thing ---- and then insist on keeping
the severely-cropped, fraudulent photograph up there to deceive *new*
gullible readers, when the fraudulence of it was drawn to his attention
over four years ago.
But ---- that's the way he operates....
Casually ---- And Sloppily....And Stubbornly...
David Read
<D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
However, cropped or not, the "Hippocampus" mosaic fails to prove the
point. Almost any ancient mosaic or other contemporary representation of
a chariot showing "distressed" horses could have been used to argue that
ancient harness either "strangled" or was "inefficient"; both the
argument and such evidence would *still* have been highly misleading at
best, and downright wrong at worst.
As has repeatedly been pointed out during the course of the Great Horse
Harness Debate, *and* in other threads as well as indicated on the Roman
Traction Systems website, the distress the animals appear to be
suffering results from their being *racing* animals who are also
subjected to the severe bitting often required in sports and military
applications in order to ensure instant response from the animal for
control purposes at speed or in the heat of battle. Such severe bitting
existed from ancient times into the modern era, with various degrees of
severity in design being used.
As a side-note, back in May this year I dragged the family down to
Chippenham to see a small-scale re-enactment put on by the excellent
Regia Anglorum society. (Thanks, David DeBono.) Part of the display was
a mounted exercise at arms where the horse, Tallifer, was performing not
very well in his first display of the season. Everything about the
horse's tack and the rider's equipment was perfect, except for one thing
- the bit. The running commentary which punctuated Tallifer's hesitant
and shaky performance pointed out that although he was an experienced
horse in these displays, the fact that it was his first display of the
season, together with the fact that the fierce bitting required would
have been frowned upon and probably illegal today, that made him seem
not as biddable as he could be and usually was.
This was highly gratifying, because back in January this year, in a
similar thread "Battle Images", I had posted the following:-
BEGIN QUOTE
Ann Hyland's _The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades_
has some illustrations and a brief discussion in Chapter One. The
introduction to Hyland's _The Warhorse 1250-1600_ develops her theme a
little further, including:-
"Bits were snaffles and curbs. Snaffles, usually jointed, are
generally milder than curbs, acting on the tongue and bars of the
mouth. Many varieties occur; wide mouthpieces spread pressure, being
less severe than thin bits. Some have external branches to prevent
the bit from being pulled through the mouth. Snaffles entail direct
action on the bit ring.
Curbs are harsher and used with indirect reining. Medieval curbs come
in a great variety. Some are moderately severe with medium ports;
others resemble a jointed pelham and have four reins. Those falling
into the severest category were instruments of torture with
excessively high ports, some rising to over 5 1/2 inches (13 cm).
Port apexes differ but all are punitive when pressed against the
palate. Several have a double mouthpiece so metal was in contact with
the palate from tushes to molars. Attached to the upper mouthpiece of
some was a metal curbstrap; when the reins were activated this
clamped into the chin groove, while internal pressures were exerted
with the double mouthpiece culminating in the top of the port
pressing against the palate as the bit rotated. If roughly used, or
with a snatch action, the port without a doubt would have punctured
the palate. Extremely long shanks exacerbated severity To gain
partial relief a horse would hold his head in a flexed position,
which also allowed more rapid rider contact. Poking his nose with
such a bit meant added discomfort. Some curbs had leather straps
attached to each side of the bit, meeting centrally over the brow and
secured to the browband, adding external pressures as the reins were
pulled.
However, horses were ridden loose-reined and prior conditioning
through pain in the mouth warned the horse what would happen if he
fought restraint. Conversely some horses become uncontrollable with
too severe a bit. In general, hot-blooded horses have nerve endings
closer to the surface than do cold-blooded horses and, also in
general, temperaments are hot-blooded/greater sensitivity, cold-
blooded/more placid. In the medieval period there were no doubt good,
bad, indifferent, and downright cruel riders as there are today, much
cruelty being caused through ineptitude and ignorance." pp 7-8
There is a little more to be found in Hyland's _The Horse in the Middle
Ages_, but rather more interesting in this regard is _Training the Roman
Cavalry - from Arrian's Ars Tactica_ by the same author, where Hyland's
own practical experiments are well worth reading.
END QUOTE
If the facial expressions of the Norman horses on the Bayeux Tapestry,
and of warhorses in much other medieval iconography make them seem more
like docile sheep and grazing cattle than stallions in the heat of
battle, this is down to the inadequacy of the media and the artistic
skills, styles and conventions of the age.
cheers,
--
David Read
D. Spencer Hines
| However, cropped or not, the "Hippocampus" mosaic fails to prove the
| point. Almost any ancient mosaic or other contemporary representation
| of a chariot showing "distressed" horses could have been used to argue
| that ancient harness either "strangled" or was "inefficient"; both the
| argument and such evidence would *still* have been highly misleading
| at best, and downright wrong at worst.
In reading your post over again, I remembered reading it the first
time ---- in January. At the time, I was impressed that you had quoted
extensively from Ann Hyland's _The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to
the Crusades_ ---- rather than just opining off the cuff as to her
conclusions. It's good to see precisely what she wrote, rather than
just a gloss ---- no matter how accurate ---- and you have given it to
us ---- twice.
Sometimes repetition seems absolutely essential here on SHM. I suppose
both hard nuts and hard noodles don't crack easily.
As I recall, your post ---- and the arguments ---- were more or less
ignored by the Usual Suspects, the first time you posted it.
"Inconvenient Historical Facts ---- Best Ignored And Left To Die" ----
Or Something Of The Sort....
It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens again this time.
Of course, you have already been cautioned not to re-open the Great
Horse Harness and Collar Debate ---- so, we'll just have to see how the
Usual Suspects read the tea leaves and make their decisions as to what
to recognize ---- and what to ignore ---- or dismiss with faint
attention to substance.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cF8KnLAT...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
Katherine Tredwell
[...]
> I would say medieval art is useful as a primary source though, as with
> any primary source, it is not without its problems.
>
> Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
> now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
> understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
> painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile.
I wonder if this is backwards? Maybe it goes like this: the ancient
Egyptians seldom painted full-frontal portrayals, so they were less
skilled at it than the popular profile images.
> Where a medieval
> artist does not understand the complexities of a piece of machinery and
> has only his memory to rely on, he would paint it as he remembered it,
> not necessarily as it was. Thus, you would have the idea of a piece of
> technology, but not necessarily an accurate representation of how it was
> constructed.
Is this a matter of the artist not understanding or remembering
themachinery? Or just not caring about what we consider to be an
accurate depiction?
[...]
Katherine Tredwell
D. Spencer Hines
machinery? Or just not caring about what we consider to be an accurate
depiction?"
Katherine Tredwell
----------------------------
No doubt it is both ---- in many cases.
This is why using artistic representations, paintings, as some sort of
proof-positive for supposedly authoritative statements on Mediaeval
Technology is such a silly-buggers enterprise.
Simon Pugh
<D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
>"Is this a matter of the artist not understanding or remembering the
>machinery? Or just not caring about what we consider to be an accurate
>depiction?"
>
>Katherine Tredwell
>----------------------------
>
>No doubt it is both ---- in many cases.
>
>This is why using artistic representations, paintings, as some sort of
>proof-positive for supposedly authoritative statements on Mediaeval
>Technology is such a silly-buggers enterprise.
>
Surely illustrations are the same as any historical source, they must be
properly evaluated and cross checked with other sources. There is
nothing inherently unreliable about them just because they are
illustrations.
Perhaps their main danger is that they are so accessible, anyone can
have a view on them. Whereas a medieval manuscript is only accessible to
a limited view. Us ordinary mortals only get to see it after it has been
filtered by experts.
In some instances a single painting can be significant, for example the
spectacles in van Eyck's "Madonna with Canon George van der Paele".
It is highly improbable that van Eyck could have dreamt up spectacles if
they didn't exist. The painting provides very good evidence of their
existence in 1436, the date of the painting.
Simon Pugh
<ga...@panix.com> writes
<snip>
>
>>There was a thread on the medieval wheel cranes used in cathedral
>>building and we head that the remains of one of them can still be seen
>>in a cathedral, I don't remember where. On the face of it the
>>illustration in the thread was quite accurate.
>
>>I guess one problem is that they were much freer with scale then. What I
>>mean is that they would show a castle on a much smaller scale than the
>>people in it so you can see both clearly.
>
>More often the scale was due to the notion that "big" folks
>should, in fact, be shown as "big folks". Thus the king
>is big, peasants are small, and animals often very small.
Yes, this is another way in which changes in scale are used.
>
>We preserve some of this when we speak of "the big man" meaning
>the boss.
>
>Castles, unless they were the centerpiece of the illustration,
>are less important than the people.
I'm not sure I agree with this, if the castle was not important why
change the scale so the whole thing can be seen. There would be no
reason not to show the people with only a part of the building to scale.
It is precisely because the castle is also important that the scale is
changed so that both the people and the castle can be seen.
At least that's my opinion. :)
D. Spencer Hines
just "existed" at some given date.
Try instead ---- "This cropped picture of a hippocampus proves that the
Romans strangled their horses because of badly constructed
harnesses" ---- a far more complex conclusion.
Visual representations ---- with all the imprecision and artistic
license often involved ---- also require no knowledge of a foreign
language, per se, and everyone can have an "opinion" as to what is
portrayed. No real skill is required. People can, to a great extent
see what they want to see ---- and ignore "inconvenient evidence."
Plus, as I stated before, ignorant people often think a visual
representation "speaks for itself" ---- when they *might* be far more
cautious in interpreting a written text ---- if they could read it at
all.
How often have you seen some pogue or poguette see a brief video on
television and draw instant conclusions about what actually happened in
a given historical event. The infamous Rodney King video is an apposite
example. And this is a VIDEO ---- not a PAINTING or DRAWING.
These additional factors create a rich and variegated cascade of NEW
problems ---- for the SERIOUS, QUALIFIED Historian.
Of course, the common, garden-variety popularizer, who marches to a
different drummer -- and who has much lower standards in doing History,
can play stickfinger and "I say it means X..." all he likes....
But that's not Real History....
It's popularized, dumbed-down rubbish.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v3mhbCC+...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
Heather Jones
>
> Renia wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I would say medieval art is useful as a primary source though, as with
> > any primary source, it is not without its problems.
> >
> > Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
> > now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
> > understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
> > painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile.
>
> I wonder if this is backwards? Maybe it goes like this: the ancient
> Egyptians seldom painted full-frontal portrayals, so they were less
> skilled at it than the popular profile images.
I've always been under the impression that the predominance of
profile poses in Egyptian painting and bas-relief was purely a
stylistic matter possibly with symbolic importance. Certainly
they had no trouble creating extremely skillful and realistic
three-dimensional depictions of heads in sculpture.
Simon Pugh
<D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
>A trivial example ---- the fact that generic [some sort of] spectacles
>just "existed" at some given date.
The fact that spectacles existed by a certain date might not be trivial
to someone interested in spectacles. :)
The point is that occasionally an image can stand alone.
>
>Try instead ---- "This cropped picture of a hippocampus proves that the
>Romans strangled their horses because of badly constructed
>harnesses" ---- a far more complex conclusion.
This is quite another thing. Here we are asked to make inferences about
horse harness design based of the supposed expression of a horse!
Obviously fraught with peril. :)
>
>Visual representations ---- with all the imprecision and artistic
>license often involved ---- also require no knowledge of a foreign
>language, per se, and everyone can have an "opinion" as to what is
>portrayed. No real skill is required. People can, to a great extent
>see what they want to see ---- and ignore "inconvenient evidence."
This was my point, they are perhaps too accessible and anyone can take a
view.
>
>Plus, as I stated before, ignorant people often think a visual
>representation "speaks for itself" ---- when they *might* be far more
>cautious in interpreting a written text ---- if they could read it at
>all.
I'm sure none of the august readers of shm would do anything like that.
:)
>
>How often have you seen some pogue or poguette see a brief video on
>television and draw instant conclusions about what actually happened in
>a given historical event. The infamous Rodney King video is an apposite
>example. And this is a VIDEO ---- not a PAINTING or DRAWING.
>
>These additional factors create a rich and variegated cascade of NEW
>problems ---- for the SERIOUS, QUALIFIED Historian.
>
>Of course, the common, garden-variety popularizer, who marches to a
>different drummer -- and who has much lower standards in doing History,
>can play stickfinger and "I say it means X..." all he likes....
>
>But that's not Real History....
I didn't say it was, but trying to get inside the medieval mind and
decode the language of pictures can be fascinating but requires careful
study and sometimes we have to admit there are some things we may never
understand. An example of that might be the mysterious Aeflgyva in the
Bayeux tapestry.
>
>It's popularized, dumbed-down rubbish.
>
>Deus Vult
<Snip>
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hxBCqHGi$879...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
| In message <ZEPH9.221$yy4....@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
| <D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
| >A trivial example ---- the fact that generic [some sort of]
| >spectacles just "existed" at some given date.
|
| The fact that spectacles existed by a certain date might not be
| trivial to someone interested in spectacles. :)
|
| The point is that occasionally an image can stand alone.
No. Rarely ---- on any complex matter.
An artist might just include some object in his illustration that he
THINKS SHOULD be there. Now, if you can precisely date the picture that
does help ---- perhaps.
But what if the artist is just good at imagining things that would be
useful but don't exist yet ---- call it an affinity for science fiction
if you like. Then we may have something in the picture that doesn't
exist in any known case ---- but it's still shown in the picture.
Consider Leonardo's drawing of the "parachute" and the figure dangling
from it. The parachute certainly didn't exist then. Some pogues and
poguettes like to say that Leonardo "invented the parachute."
Bollocks!
He drew a picture of what he thought would be a useful device to
have ---- but he never built a useful parachute.
One has to move beyond simplistic thinking here ---- what Hemingway
called "stomach think."
| >Try instead ---- "This cropped picture of a hippocampus proves that
| >the Romans strangled their horses because of badly constructed
| >harnesses" ---- a far more complex conclusion.
|
| This is quite another thing. Here we are asked to make inferences
| about horse harness design based of [on] the supposed expression
| of a horse! Obviously fraught with peril. :)
Precisely!
Almost...
You forget that it's NOT even an illustration of a HORSE that is
depicted. It is an illustration of a mythical beast ---- the
HIPPOCAMPUS.
That's why it's codswallop. But it's still up on that WebPage ---- over
four years after the poster has been told it is codswallop.
Hilarious!
| >Visual representations ---- with all the imprecision and artistic
| >license often involved ---- also require no knowledge of a foreign
| >language, per se, and everyone can have an "opinion" as to what is
| >portrayed. No real skill is required. People can, to a great extent
| >see what they want to see ---- and ignore "inconvenient evidence."
|
| This was my point, they are perhaps too accessible and anyone can take
| a view.
Indeed.
And don't forget how many people were misled by the Rodney King
VIDEO ---- NOT a 4th Century Mosaic or a 15th Century Painting. People
often fail to ask, "What happened before the video started ---- and
after?" And they don't like to admit, "I can't clearly see what's going
on there" ---- for fear such an admission will "make them look stupid."
Also consider how many wild-arsed interpretations one has heard based on
photographs and videos dealing with the Kennedy Assassination.
And those are quite RECENT visual representations, comparatively.
Now, try backing things up 1,000 years to the 11th Century....or 1,700
years to the Fourth Century.
[...]
DSH
Paul J Gans
I'll not disagree, especially since I've not seen the actual
picture you are referring to. Nevertheless, in general what
I've said is generally true -- and what you said also occurs
in numerous illustrations.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>A trivial example ---- the fact that generic [some sort of] spectacles
>just "existed" at some given date.
>Try instead ---- "This cropped picture of a hippocampus proves that the
>Romans strangled their horses because of badly constructed
>harnesses" ---- a far more complex conclusion.
You know, you are a real idiot. I never said that, YOU did. So
why do you have it in quotes. I know that you were trained in
the generation of misinformation, but you are supposed to be far
more subtle.
Just for the amusement of other folks, let's look at what I've
actually said on
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/harncont.html
It is this:
"An example of the kind of iconography that Gimpel and others
interpreted as showing distress in horses can be seen in this
detail from a Roman mosaic. In it the harness strap passes around
the base of the horse's neck. Though this horse is drawing a light
chariot, it was assumed that its gaping mouth and bulging eyes were
typical of the reactions of horses who had to pull heavier loads."
which is a far cry from what you say I said. Disinformation indeed.
Further, I go on to say:
"There the matter rested until 1977, when J. Spruytte
reinvestigated Lefebvre des Noëttes work. J. Spruytte,
_E'tudes experimentales sur l'attelage_ (Paris, Crepin-Leblond,
1977. English translation published as: J. Spruytte, _Early harness
systems: experimental studies_ (London, J. A. Allen, 1983) Spruytte
concluded that Lefebvre des Noëttes' harness reconstruction was
incorrect. Spruytte argued that the Romans used two harnesses,
one a neck collar and the other a dorsal yoke that used a breast
strap. [Mokyr 1990 p 36, footnote 5]. Using his own reconstructed
harness (a neck harness that strongly resembles Lefebvre des Noëttes
version), Spruytte found that his horse was able to pull, with
relative ease, a load of 440 kilograms (about 1000 pounds) and
a total load, counting the cart and driver, of 975 kilograms
(about one ton). He interpreted this as being about twice the
weight Lefebvre des Noëttes had claimed possible."
Again, this is a far cry from what you claim I say.
You are such a failed fool Hines. It is hardly worth
spending the time to expose you. Anyone who cared about
this long ago checked out my actual web pages and figured
out the truth for themselves. They need no help from me.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
All of those Greek (and Roman) bas-reliefs showing enraged horses with
their eyes bulging out and tongues sticking out of their mouths are NOT
artistic examples of battle fury. They are accurate representations of
a horse strangling himself because of improper harness."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
Clearly, Gans said both the Greeks and Romans strangled their horses
because of improper harnesses.
And, as if that were not enough Gansian chicanery:
"In it the harness strap passes around the base of the horse's [sic]
neck. Though this horse [sic] is drawing a light chariot [sic], it was
assumed that its gaping mouth and bulging eyes were typical of the
reactions of horses [sic] who had to pull heavier loads."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------
Dead Wrong....
Further:
The fraudulently cropped photograph, [fraudulently cropped by Gans
*himself*, a la Roy Cohn, for Senator Joe McCarthy], a portion of a
Roman mosaic from Algeria of circa 315-325 A.D., in the Louvre, does not
show part of a HORSE at all.
The illustration is of a HIPPOCAMPUS ---- a mythical beast which never
even existed on the face of the Earth, pulling [along with three other
mythical hippocampi] the mythical Sea Chariot of the mythical Roman god
Neptune, who never even existed either.
Coming from Gans, the confirmed and proselytizing atheist, this is
richly hilarious fare indeed.
Apparently Gans *does* believe in pagan gods and goddesses and their
fantastic mythical beasts ---- such as the hippocampi ---- pulling their
fanciful mythical chariots.
Gans *pretends* the illustration is of a HORSE, which is fraudulent, and
wants us to be deceived into accepting his anserine conclusion. David
Read, _au contraire_, tells us that BITS were far more important in
causing gaping mouths and bulging eyes in illustrations of horses.
Gans, as is to be expected, is too cowardly and discombobulated even to
reply to Read's charges. He hopes it will all just pass over ---- and
no one will remember what a fool he has made of himself for over five
years.
"David, I am not about to re-open the horsecollar debate."
Paul J. Gans
Hilarious!
"And if you don't stop it, stop it right now, David ---- I'm going to
expel you from my class."
If Gans speaks out and replies to David Read, he knows that he will make
himself look even *more* foolish and get himself into even *deeper*
water ---- the Emperor Gans ---- with no clothes. So, he clams up.
Gans The Fraud....Who Presents All This Folderol As Valid Historical
Evidence....
But ignores David Read ---- who disagrees and provides both quotes and
citations from reputable experts ---- countering Gans's fanciful,
undocumented opining about mythical, fanciful, fantasy sources ---- and
mythical beasts, serving mythical Roman gods and goddesses.
Clearly, an excellent summary of Gans's attitude toward Real
History ---- and valid historical evidence, if *ever* it conflicts with
his anserine, mythical, fanciful, ahistorical preconceptions, is:
"Inconvenient Historical Evidence Is Best Ignored and Allowed To Die..."
E. C. Lee
> Renia wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I would say medieval art is useful as a primary source though, as with
> > any primary source, it is not without its problems.
> >
> > Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
> > now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
> > understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
> > painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile.
>
> I wonder if this is backwards? Maybe it goes like this: the ancient
> Egyptians seldom painted full-frontal portrayals, so they were less
> skilled at it than the popular profile images.
>
skill, but because the use of profile had meaning in their culture.
In fact, their convention in drawing was not a strict profile, but a
profile face, full torso, legs profile. They were NOT trying to
reproduce nature, but were representating a type. To show a figure is
a less stylized pose would have been insulting and perhaps even
sacreligious. However, they WERE able to reproduce things in a more
naturalistic style, but the artist reserved this for images that were
considered less important.
I once got in an argument with someone who said that the Medieval
artist did not depict things in a "real" manner because they lacked
the technical skill. IMHO, this simply isn't so. For the most part,
the Medieval artists weren't interested in duplicating the
photographic reality of this world. Pattern and color (often to
depict spirituality), symbolism, materials, etc. often had greater
priority. As their interests changed, their art changed.
Likewise the depiction of things in a highly naturalistic or real
state is not necessarily progress or advancement. If that was the
case, most modern art would be considered regressive instead of
sophisticated. Actually, there is great sophistication in the art of
the past. We just can't understand it without having the necessary
visual literacy for proper interpretation.
As far as our "superior" techniques, many of the techniques of the
past have been disgarded and we are poorer because of it. If you ever
talk to someone who works in art conservation you'll learn that
techniques that enabled art to last hundreds of years are no longer
used, whereas many of today's artists work with materials that might
not even last a decade! Why? Usually because they just don't care.
Permanence may not be a high priority to them.
> > Where a medieval
> > artist does not understand the complexities of a piece of machinery and
> > has only his memory to rely on, he would paint it as he remembered it,
> > not necessarily as it was. Thus, you would have the idea of a piece of
> > technology, but not necessarily an accurate representation of how it was
> > constructed.
>
> Is this a matter of the artist not understanding or remembering
> themachinery? Or just not caring about what we consider to be an
> accurate depiction?
>
I agree. We assume that showing something as it is should be an
artist's concern, but that's not always the case. The Medieval artist
was not trying to document technology. In fact, the artist was
probably just giving enough information so that you'd know what the
subject was, but no more than was necessary.
Another thing to consider is that sometimes the truth of the object is
less important that the style or beauty of the composition. This
calls to mind the depiction of musical instruments that could not
possibly play a note if actually constructed. However, they look
great in paint!
So though there may be times when one CAN use art to document
contemporary objects, you have to be careful because at other times it
can end up an illusion.
JMHO,
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
"The British Museum has several reliefs showing horses pulling chariots,
mouths open and eyes protruding. There is an image of a mosaic of a
horse [sic] in a similar situation on one of my Medieval Technology
Pages, along with diagrams of the "old" and "new" ways of managing a
horse harness."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
That was in addition to these equine blivets posted by Gans, previously
quoted in full:
"Without a horse-collar, horses simply don't function.
All of those Greek (and Roman) bas-reliefs showing enraged horses with
their eyes bulging out and tongues sticking out of their mouths are NOT
artistic examples of battle fury. They are accurate representations of
a horse strangling himself because of improper harness."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
Clearly, Gans said both the Greeks and Romans strangled their horses
because of improper harnesses.
"In it the harness strap passes around the base of the horse's [sic]
neck. Though this horse [sic] is drawing a light chariot [sic], it was
assumed that its gaping mouth and bulging eyes were typical of the
reactions of horses [sic] who had to pull heavier loads."
Paul J. Gans
---------------------
He can't deny it. It's as plain as the nose on your face ---- and the
spreading red blush on Gans's.
Hilarious!
D. Spencer Hines
artist's concern, but that's not always the case. The Medieval artist
was not trying to document technology. In fact, the artist was probably
just giving enough information so that you'd know what the subject was,
but no more than was necessary."
Eve
Right You Are! ---- DSH
Therefore, any attempt to use these mediaeval illustrations as solid
historical documentation of Mediaeval Technology, particularly in the
hands of a tyro, is totally farblondjet. ---- DSH
"Another thing to consider is that sometimes the truth of the object is
less important that the style or beauty of the composition. This calls
to mind the depiction of musical instruments that could not possibly
play a note if actually constructed. However, they look great in
paint!"
Eve
Right Again! ---- DSH
We often see that the device simply would not function properly as
depicted. ---- DSH
"So though there may be times when one CAN use art to document
contemporary objects, you have to be careful because at other times it
can end up an illusion."
JMHO,
Eve [E. C. Lee]
Right! ---- DSH
And in the hands of an untrained amateur, such as the Usual Suspect,
such artistic representations often lead to egregious errors, gargantuan
gaffes and subsequent pratfalls ---- as the night follows the day. ----
DSH
Verbum Sapienti....
Paul J Gans
[...]
>I once got in an argument with someone who said that the Medieval
>artist did not depict things in a "real" manner because they lacked
>the technical skill. IMHO, this simply isn't so. For the most part,
>the Medieval artists weren't interested in duplicating the
>photographic reality of this world. Pattern and color (often to
>depict spirituality), symbolism, materials, etc. often had greater
>priority. As their interests changed, their art changed.
And again, as you've said before, medieval sculpture can
be highly realistic. Different medium, different intention.
[...]
----- Paul J. Gans
Simon Pugh
It's not the example I was thinking of, but how about the castle scenes
in the campaign against Conan in the Bayeux tapestry?
David Read
<ga...@panix.com> writes
<snip>
>
>Further, I go on to say:
>
> "There the matter rested until 1977, when J. Spruytte
> reinvestigated Lefebvre des Noëttes work. J. Spruytte,
> _E'tudes experimentales sur l'attelage_ (Paris, Crepin-Leblond,
> 1977. English translation published as: J. Spruytte, _Early harness
> systems: experimental studies_ (London, J. A. Allen, 1983) Spruytte
> concluded that Lefebvre des Noëttes' harness reconstruction was
> incorrect. Spruytte argued that the Romans used two harnesses,
> one a neck collar and the other a dorsal yoke that used a breast
> strap. [Mokyr 1990 p 36, footnote 5]. Using his own reconstructed
> harness (a neck harness that strongly resembles Lefebvre des Noëttes
> version),
No, Spruytte used the dorsal yoke system for this experiment. It is not
a "neck harness", and the resemblance to Lefebvre des Noëttes' throat
collar is superficial at best, the differences being described by
Spruytte himself.
>Spruytte found that his horse was able to pull, with
> relative ease, a load of 440 kilograms (about 1000 pounds) and
> a total load, counting the cart and driver, of 975 kilograms
> (about one ton). He interpreted this as being about twice the
> weight Lefebvre des Noëttes had claimed possible."
No, there were a pair of horses involved in both LdN's and Spruytte's
experiments.
His conclusion was that, unlike LdN's system, (which, according to
Spruytte, was a confusion of two ancient traction systems, the neck-yoke
and the dorsal-yoke which had resulted in "a defective harness, composed
of a supple band passing in front of the shoulders and attached to the
yoke on top of the withers") the dorsal yoke did not inconvenience the
horses, and did not cause them to raise their heads or necks. Because
LdN's harness had caused his horses so many problems, his conclusion was
that the load limit (1,500 Roman librae = 492kg) set for vehicles of the
_cursus clabularis_ in the Theodosian Code must have meant to include
the weight of the vehicle and the driver too. Spruytte demonstrated
that with his dorsal yoke, an all-up weight of 975kg could be hauled
with relative ease.
>Again, this is a far cry from what you claim I say.
>
>You are such a failed fool Hines. It is hardly worth
>spending the time to expose you. Anyone who cared about
>this long ago checked out my actual web pages and figured
>out the truth for themselves. They need no help from me.
Yes, it's always worth checking what you say.
cheers,
--
David Read
D. Spencer Hines
And we still have these outrageous Gansian distortions to contend with
as well.
Gans is a One-Man Disinformation Machine all by himself ---- the worst
possible sin for an academic:
"The British Museum has several reliefs showing horses pulling chariots,
mouths open and eyes protruding. There is an image of a mosaic of a
horse [sic] * in a similar situation on one of my Medieval Technology
Pages, along with diagrams of the "old" and "new" ways of managing a
horse harness."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
* It is by no means a HORSE [Equus caballus]. It is a cropped portion
of a HIPPOCAMPUS ---- a mythical sea beast or monster.
"Without a horse-collar, horses simply don't function.
All of those Greek (and Roman) bas-reliefs showing enraged horses with
their eyes bulging out and tongues sticking out of their mouths are NOT
artistic examples of battle fury. They are accurate representations of
a horse strangling himself because of improper harness."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
Clearly, Gans said both the Greeks and Romans strangled their horses
because of improper harnesses.
"In it the harness strap passes around the base of the horse's * [sic]
neck. Though this horse * [sic] is drawing a light chariot ** [sic],
it was assumed that its gaping mouth and bulging eyes were typical of
the reactions of horses * [sic] who had to pull heavier loads."
Paul J. Gans
---------------------
* It is by no means a HORSE [Equus caballus]. It is a cropped portion
of a HIPPOCAMPUS ---- a mythical sea beast or monster.
** It is not a "light chariot" ---- it is a mythical seashell chariot
for the Roman god, Neptune and his mate, Amphitrite.
Now THAT'S what I call DISINFORMATION ---- Writ Large ---- Right Out Of
Roman Mythology ---- Paraded As Historical Evidence....
And then there is the additional issue of the BITS ---- previously
raised by David Read.
Think BITS And Harnesses ---- Not Just Harnesses.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y647oKAf...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y647oKAf...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
That all seems quite devastating to Gans's arguments ---- his careless
and sloppy work has been skewered yet again.
Now we'll get to see if Gans has the courage and the intelligence to
defend what he has said.
I'm not holding my breath ---- Gans is probably running for the tall
grass as I write this.
DSH
Martin Reboul
D. Spencer Hines wrote...
> "I agree. We assume that showing something as it is should be an
> artist's concern, but that's not always the case. The Medieval artist
> was not trying to document technology. In fact, the artist was probably
> just giving enough information so that you'd know what the subject was,
> but no more than was necessary."
>
> Eve
>
> Right You Are! ---- DSH
Agreed....
> Therefore, any attempt to use these mediaeval illustrations as solid
> historical documentation of Mediaeval Technology, particularly in the
> hands of a tyro, is totally farblondjet. ---- DSH
Utter cobblers. Read what the lady says my dear Spencer....
" ...the artist was probably just giving enough information so that you'd
know what the subject was, but no more than was necessary."
Exactly. A drawing of our living room might include a TV set? A box with a
rectangular glass screen. We know what it is, although there is no aeriel
shown, perhaps no plug to the mains, no picture on the screen.... certainly
no circuit disgram or component layout....? But then, aha - is this DSH's
living room? Maybe it is actually a computer monitor or some piece of ultra
secret communications or surveillance equipment? Historians of the future
discuss ad nauseum .....
Of course, any medieval person would have no idea what it was - they might
assume a mirror perhaps, or a portrait? Not within their experience. Some
things they had in their time are not within ours - they have been
forgotten, not many I grant you, but when it comes to symbolism and hidden
meanings, we are sometimes stuffed. They would have recognised them however?
They represented things as they saw them (not 'accurately' exactly, by
stylististically - look at their guns for instance?). The clues and hints
are often there.
> "Another thing to consider is that sometimes the truth of the object is
> less important that the style or beauty of the composition. This calls
> to mind the depiction of musical instruments that could not possibly
> play a note if actually constructed. However, they look great in
> paint!"
>
> Eve
>
> Right Again! ---- DSH
>
> We often see that the device simply would not function properly as
> depicted. ---- DSH
Yet it was depicted.... as it 'should' look (according to them). Look at
some pictures of armoured men in battle. Absurd, it would never work, but it
looks 'classy' ? However, if you look at the structure of the plates, the
rivets and the 'idea' of it, you can see they were drawing a real thing, as
we have surviving armour to compare it with (The Rous Roll is a fine
example).
A modern equivalent is the Barbie doll - an impossible, absurd depiction of
a woman - stylised. We know what she's supposed to be and she pleases many
eyes it seems, as I think she's nearly 50 now , and still in production?
What you are dismally short of is imagination David - not fantasy
imagination, but the ability to analyse with sensible expansion outside the
realm of "solid fact".
Stick to that and what have you got? Bugger all....
> "So though there may be times when one CAN use art to document
> contemporary objects, you have to be careful because at other times it
> can end up an illusion."
>
> JMHO,
>
> Eve [E. C. Lee]
Absolutely right Eve - you know your stuff! Careful... and thoughtful.
> Right! ---- DSH
>
> And in the hands of an untrained amateur, such as the Usual Suspect,
> such artistic representations often lead to egregious errors, gargantuan
> gaffes and subsequent pratfalls ---- as the night follows the day. ----
> DSH
No David, you are quite wrong - As Usual. The 'untrained amateur' often
considers avenues and possibilities closed off to formally trained (and
sometimes out of touch) minds, and valuable discoveries are made. Watch this
space...
You should try it sometime?
Cheers
Martin
David Read
<D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
>
>Hmmmmmmmmmm.
>
>That all seems quite devastating to Gans's arguments ---- his careless
>and sloppy work has been skewered yet again.
>
>Now we'll get to see if Gans has the courage and the intelligence to
>defend what he has said.
>
>I'm not holding my breath ---- Gans is probably running for the tall
>grass as I write this.
The effect if not the purpose of Paul Gans' misrepresentation of
Spruytte's experiment and conclusions is to have created a straw man
that was easy for him to knock down. No surprises there, then.
Paul's own conclusion on his Great Harness Controversy web page is thus
made to seem a good deal more reasonable than it actually is:-
"The final word in this story was written by history. The Roman neck
harness has not survived. Replaced first by the breast strap and
also later by the horse collar, the neck harness is no longer used."
Spruytte did not use a "neck harness" in his famous experiment to
demonstrate the inadequacy of LdN's "throat and girth" harness; he used
a "dorsal yoke", a system which places the main effort of traction
against the horse's chest, which is a system that found further
expression in the development of the Late Antique breast collar. The
other ancient harness traction system, the "neck yoke" places the main
effort of traction against the horse's shoulders, a system that found
further expression in the development of the medieval shoulder-collar.
The dorsal yoke did indeed survive, gaining popularity in its developed
form as the system used for the curricle, a fast personal transport
favoured by wealthy - notably in the England during the 19th century by
the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Uxbridge. Today, the renaissance
of dorsal yoke traction, begun in the United States in the 1960's, is
being led by Jim Walsh in Australia, whose superbly engineered racing
vehicles, using the dorsal yoke, have, against entrenched opposition,
shaken up the world of modern harness racing.
The "breast-strap", or breast-collar survived too, and, from around the
middle of the 19th century onwards, it became increasingly popular.
First amongst the western world's armies and, in Germany in particular,
in civilian use, it began to displace the shoulder-collar. The
industrial and agricultural revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries
caused the whole question of animal traction systems to be looked at
closely again in some quarters, but the advent of first the steam engine
and then the internal combustion engine increasingly made further
research and development of animal traction systems an irrelevance. Thus
the long established tradition of the shoulder-collar ensured its
survival in many quarters, even in applications where its technology and
economics had ceased to be appropriate.
cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
"The French planned their campaigns just
as you might make a splendid piece of harness;
it looks very well until it gets broken and then
you are done for. Now I make my campaigns of
ropes. If anything went wrong, I tied a knot and
went on."
The Duke of Wellington (1769-1852)
Eric Dockum
If so, he must be following your trail, liberally littered with drafts
of your response on your sloppy Taranto cut and paste,
Halliburton/Israeli origin certificates. Perhaps you can hunker down
in the tall grass and offer him a Cuban cigar (import ban ignored).
Just watch you don't set the grass alight and burn your ...
Still waiting for the recent postings are full of falsities and
evasions. Never mind raking up old stuff.
Eric the Unreal.
(who still seems to be able to hypenate better than those from a minor
American school named after a cheap rim lock.
Simon Pugh
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>> And in the hands of an untrained amateur, such as the Usual Suspect,
>> such artistic representations often lead to egregious errors, gargantuan
>> gaffes and subsequent pratfalls ---- as the night follows the day. ----
>> DSH
>
>No David, you are quite wrong - As Usual. The 'untrained amateur' often
>considers avenues and possibilities closed off to formally trained (and
>sometimes out of touch) minds, and valuable discoveries are made. Watch this
>space...
>
>You should try it sometime?
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not be
totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
The amateur dares to think outside the box and can throw up new ideas.
An amateur may also put much more time and effort into a particular
issue that interests them. A professional on the other hand has to
justify the time s/he devotes to a problem.
But did you have something particular in mind? :)
David Read
<Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> writes
>
>I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not be
>totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
>developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
>areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
>
>The amateur dares to think outside the box and can throw up new ideas.
>An amateur may also put much more time and effort into a particular
>issue that interests them. A professional on the other hand has to
>justify the time s/he devotes to a problem.
Indeed. And a "professional" who publishes or writes up his results on a
particular problem will likely find that a well-informed "amateur" will
become one of his best critics if that "professional" has not devoted as
much time and effort to the issue as has the "amateur".
"You, and some others, seem to be put out that I will not cite
the "original" evidence. When someone says that, I *know*
that they are amateurs."
Professor P. J. Gans. 5th January 1998
cheers,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
"What difference does it make by what pains each
seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a
secret by one road." Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
E. C. Lee
<much snipped>
>
> They represented things as they saw them (not 'accurately' exactly, by
> stylististically - look at their guns for instance?). The clues and hints
> are often there.
>
Well, "saw" might not be the best word. "Thought of" might be better,
or perhaps "perceived". As for clues and hints being there, that's is
a good point. It's often depicted as a kind of shorthand.
IMHO visual languages are like other languages, and people don't
realize this. Some words in other languages are familiar enough to us
that we can make out their meaning. Some *seem" familiar to us, but
are deceptive in that we assume we know their meanings but we don't at
all. Of course when dealing with the past you have the same problem
you do in deciphering languages of the past. Even when you know the
translations, the *meaning* of the word might not be the same as how
we use it. Like the word "love", for example. For example, sometimes
the Medieval idea of *love* had different meanings from the ones we
use today. This was a key in the great John Boswell debacle.
Sometimes translating images isn't difficult, at other times it can
very complex, requiring both both knowledge and understanding. And
aspects of visual language can change depending on region and the
specific time period . Sometimes meanings can also change in the
context that they're used, so a visual "dictionary" doesn't always
work.
However, just as historians don't throw in the towel when faced with
the obstacles of original writings, art historians take the
information they are given and try to find out how it can be used in
an understanding of the past.
<more snip>
>
> Yet it was depicted.... as it 'should' look (according to them).
Sorry to niggle here, but *should* might imply idealization. A
*shorthand* of the most important elements might be a truer
definition. At times you might have the idealized concept transposed
through a stylized image. A stylized image based on then understood
conventions.
Look at
> some pictures of armoured men in battle. Absurd, it would never work, but it
> looks 'classy' ?
YES! And in seeing that, you learn that "classy" appearance was an
important value in those days. A good translation might be that it
looked "cool". Of course, in battle that wouldn't be important and
probably would be foolish to dwell on. A good comparison could be
found in Shunga, Japanese erotic art. The positions shown are
physically impossible, but they express eroticism to their audience.
There was even a poem written about how stupid it would be to try to
duplicate such positions in real life and making fun of anyone who was
so naive as to not realize this.
However, if you look at the structure of the plates, the
> rivets and the 'idea' of it, you can see they were drawing a real thing, as
> we have surviving armour to compare it with (The Rous Roll is a fine
> example).
It reminds me of ancient Greek art. There's a strong emphasis on male
musculature and parts of the body that move. That's because it
represented a major aspect of their culture. It meant a physical
preparedness for battle which was essential for their culture's
survival. We tend to think of how "real" Greek statues appear, and
part of this is our familarity with an artistic heritage inherited
from the Greeks. But real? They eliminated a lot of what was
considerd non-essencial, like body hair, and individual facial
features (until the Hellenistic times). These elements weren't as
important to them because they weren't important to their culture.
> A modern equivalent is the Barbie doll - an impossible, absurd depiction of
> a woman - stylised. We know what she's supposed to be and she pleases many
> eyes it seems, as I think she's nearly 50 now , and still in production?
A really good and understandable comparison! Our society outwardly
interprets Barbie as a good looking woman. If we seriously scrutenize
her or try to translate her into reality, she'd be a freak. But what
does she tell us about the ideal of beauty in our society? A lot! So
a historian in the future couldn't take Barbie as representative of
any "real" woman but could interpret our ideals through her.
<more snips and thanks for your confidence in my analysis!>
>
> The 'untrained amateur' often
> considers avenues and possibilities closed off to formally trained (and
> sometimes out of touch) minds, and valuable discoveries are made.
Quite true. Sometimes experts get inbred and lose the ability to see
outside the box. There are also those amateurs who are naturally
"intuitive"in a field. I'm currently corresponding with someone about
art history. He doesn't have the training, but I'm constantly amazed
at the wonderful observations he brings to the table.
Martin mentioned imagination and that might imply to someone the
making of something out of whole cloth. But I think what Martin means
is someone who has the ability to see things with some sort of extra
dimension. This imagination enables them to put together disparate
elements of data and then come up with insights not readily apparent
to the less imaginative viewer. You might also call this skill
"talent".
JMHO,
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, He Does So Love To Palm Off Those Straw Men On The Unwary, The
Callow And The Naive....
A Casual, Knee-Jerk, Careless And Sloppy Theory ---- Killed By A Brutal
Gang Of Facts.
And Still He Hides In The Tall Grass ---- Deeply Buried In The Gansian
Führerbunker ---- Bleeding From Multiple Rhetorical Wounds....
Hilarious!
Yet Also Sad ---- Quite Sad....
Competent Academics Are NOT Supposed To Do This Sort Of Thing.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David Read" <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ORQOiAA9...@dreadful.demon.co.uk...
erilar
> I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not be
> totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
> developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
> areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
A mild digression: once upon a time I taught high-school English. Being
open to interpretation myself, I sometimes elicited some interesting
ones from REALLY untrained amateurs in poetry and Shakespeare units. No
expertise, but definitely pushing out of that box 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmmmm.
So this hortatory statement is obviously a conglomeration of
unadulterated hogwash, balderdash, codswallop and twaddle...with a dash
of red herring for flavouring....
"The final word in this story was written by history. The Roman neck
harness has not survived. Replaced first by the breast strap and also
later by the horse collar, the neck harness is no longer used."
Paul J. Gans
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/harncont.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| The effect if not the purpose of Paul Gans' misrepresentation of
| Spruytte's experiment and conclusions is to have created a straw man
| that was easy for him to knock down. No surprises there, then.
David Read
-------------------
Quite right, not surprising in the least....
Nor is it the first time....
Further, Real Historians, writing for educated grown-ups ---- and those
with a Sense of History ---- don't write flatulent, gratuitous treacle
such as:
"The final word in this story was written by history."
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Further Devastation To Gans's Rampant, Undisciplined Opinings.
|
| Yes, He Does So Love To Palm Off Those Straw Men On The Unwary, The
| Callow And The Naive....
|
| A Casual, Knee-Jerk, Careless And Sloppy Theory ---- Killed By A
Brutal
| Gang Of Facts.
|
| And Still He Hides In The Tall Grass ---- Deeply Buried In The Gansian
| Führerbunker ---- Bleeding From Multiple Rhetorical Wounds....
|
| Hilarious!
|
| Yet Also Sad ---- Quite Sad....
|
| Competent Academics Are NOT Supposed To Do This Sort Of Thing.
|
| Deus Vult
Bryn Fraser
>In article <9hPFO0GF...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>, Simon Pugh
><Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not be
>> totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
>> developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
>> areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
>
>A mild digression: once upon a time I taught high-school English. Being
>open to interpretation myself, I sometimes elicited some interesting
>ones from REALLY untrained amateurs in poetry and Shakespeare units. No
>expertise, but definitely pushing out of that box 8-)
I seems to me that people tend to get shouted down by the Experts
somewhere between the recognition of phenomena and forming a
hypothesis...
The scientific method... or just plain bullying?
>
--
Bryn Fraser
~~~~~~~~~~~ ;)
Confronted by outstanding merit in another, there is no way of saving one's ego
except by love.
Goethe Maxims and Reflections 40 (1809)
________________________________________
XX XX
XX http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk XX
XX http://www.thefrasers.com XX
XX____________________________________XX
Paul J Gans
>erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> writes
>>In article <9hPFO0GF...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>, Simon Pugh
>><Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not be
>>> totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
>>> developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
>>> areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
>>
>>A mild digression: once upon a time I taught high-school English. Being
>>open to interpretation myself, I sometimes elicited some interesting
>>ones from REALLY untrained amateurs in poetry and Shakespeare units. No
>>expertise, but definitely pushing out of that box 8-)
>I seems to me that people tend to get shouted down by the Experts
>somewhere between the recognition of phenomena and forming a
>hypothesis...
>The scientific method... or just plain bullying?
>>
The opposite also happens. In the US right now there
is a campaign to allow theories of human origins other
than evolution to be taught at public expense. A number
of jurisdictions either have or are considering going
along with this.
It is an example of bullying by untrained amateurs... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans, who has been solidly bagged and proven wrong by David Read, is now
desperately throwing out red herrings.
He has opened up a discussion on the teaching of evolution in U.S.
schools ---- and he suddenly wants to talk about the weapons inspectors
and the looming War Against Terrorism in Iraq ---- subjects that he
wouldn't touch with an eleven-foot-pole on SHM just a few days ago.
But he has gone as quiet as a Moslem mouse living in a synagogue, at a
Bar Mitzvah, on the issue of Horse Harnesses, Horse Collars and Bits.
Hilarious!
Bryn Fraser
Quite so... but given the Liberal conspiracy a non-controversial third
way will be accepted by the majority...
So I guess we can expect Terry Pratchett the next and final Pope... And
the Great Turtle to be the foundation of world theology...
Paul J Gans
>Fascinating!
>Gans, who has been solidly bagged and proven wrong by David Read, is now
>desperately throwing out red herrings.
>He has opened up a discussion on the teaching of evolution in U.S.
>schools ---- and he suddenly wants to talk about the weapons inspectors
>and the looming War Against Terrorism in Iraq ---- subjects that he
>wouldn't touch with an eleven-foot-pole on SHM just a few days ago.
>But he has gone as quiet as a Moslem mouse living in a synagogue, at a
>Bar Mitzvah, on the issue of Horse Harnesses, Horse Collars and Bits.
I've had my say on horse harnesses. My pages are up, my
sources are cited. I'll stand by them.
Sorry that I'm refusing to play your silly game. All this
was argued years ago and is quite settled.
The medieval horse harness replaced earlier harnesses. Period.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[...]
>Quite so... but given the Liberal conspiracy a non-controversial third
>way will be accepted by the majority...
>So I guess we can expect Terry Pratchett the next and final Pope... And
>the Great Turtle to be the foundation of world theology...
Hey, I could go for that!
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans Is In Denial ---- Hiding In The Führerbunker, Hidden In The Tall
Grass.
"The final word in this story was written by history. The Roman neck
harness has not survived. Replaced first by the breast strap and also
later by the horse collar, the neck harness is no longer used."
Paul J. Gans
---------------------
Curious, Gans, won't accept History's "final word" on *anything*
else ---- insisting that each generation writes its own History, in the
best Absolute Relativistic Stance ---- but *here* he pontificates that
History has pronounced her _Final Word_ [tm] ---- when it comes to
mediaeval horse harnesses. Hilarious in itself.
David Read countered:
| The effect if not the purpose of Paul Gans' misrepresentation of
| Spruytte's experiment and conclusions is to have created a straw man
| that was easy for him to knock down. No surprises there, then.
David Read
And Then Added:
-----------------------------
Gans is looking really weak here. He refuses to answer David Read, who
has the historical facts to back him up, on a clear matter of mediaeval
historical substance.
Gans seems to fear that David Read has the goods on him and will only
make Gans look even worse if he engages. So he cowers in the
Führerbunker and waits for the storm to pass over ---- throwing out a
red herring from time to time.
Gans is *always* afraid of _New Inconvenient Historical Facts_ ---- and
runs away from them.
Gans's confederates, if they had a scintilla of a Sense of Integrity or
of History, would call him to account.
But they don't ---- they don't want to buck The Emperor Gans and incur
his wrath. So, they remain silent ---- like little rabbits in a burrow.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:asub3t$2lv$3...@reader1.panix.com...
| D. Spencer Hines <D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> wrote:
| >Fascinating!
|
| >Gans, who has been solidly bagged and proven wrong by David Read, is
| >now desperately throwing out red herrings.
|
| >He has opened up a discussion on the teaching of evolution in U.S.
| >schools ---- and he suddenly wants to talk about the weapons
| >inspectors and the looming War Against Terrorism in Iraq
| >---- subjects he wouldn't touch with an eleven-foot-pole on
Martin Reboul
Paul J Gans wrote ...
> Bryn Fraser wrote:
> >erilar writes
> >> Simon Pugh wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree with this Martin. Although the "untrained amateur" should not
be
> >>> totally naive, whilst lacking formal training, they should have
> >>> developed an interest and it is good if they have expertise in other
> >>> areas which they can bring to bear on the problem.
> >>
> >>A mild digression: once upon a time I taught high-school English. Being
> >>open to interpretation myself, I sometimes elicited some interesting
> >>ones from REALLY untrained amateurs in poetry and Shakespeare units. No
> >>expertise, but definitely pushing out of that box 8-)
>
> >I seems to me that people tend to get shouted down by the Experts
> >somewhere between the recognition of phenomena and forming a
> >hypothesis...
>
> >The scientific method... or just plain bullying?
> >>
>
> The opposite also happens. In the US right now there
> is a campaign to allow theories of human origins other
> than evolution to be taught at public expense. A number
> of jurisdictions either have or are considering going
> along with this.
>
> It is an example of bullying by untrained amateurs... ;-)
Do mean 'esteemed theologians' Paul?
The thing is, we should all try our best to retain an open mind on every
matter - no easy task! I am "naturally disrespectful" by nature (as some may
have noticed?), so when I'm told by 'experts' (a dangerous title!) that
something is 'fact', rather than question their qualifications and
experience, ask who deemed them 'an expert' in the first place, or believe
what they say without question, I do my best to look at their point(s), look
at the opinions of others, look at it myself and see what looks likely?
Usually the 'experts' are right, but quite often I'm unsatisfied. Very
occasionally I see something they have overlooked, connections they may not
have considered as I have expertise in other fields that they don't, or have
discovered something myself by chance.
This can be vital with regard to archaeology in particular, and other things
I have no training in whatsoever such as art history. When it comes to
parapsychology, ghosts, magic, UFO's, Dark Matter and religion, even more
so. How many times have I heard "there are no such things as ghosts!" said
smugly by 'expert' scientists? We all know that there are....
Cheers
Martin
Bryn Fraser
>> >The scientific method... or just plain bullying?
>> >>
>>
>> The opposite also happens. In the US right now there
>> is a campaign to allow theories of human origins other
>> than evolution to be taught at public expense. A number
>> of jurisdictions either have or are considering going
>> along with this.
>>
>> It is an example of bullying by untrained amateurs... ;-)
>
>Do mean 'esteemed theologians' Paul?
>
>The thing is, we should all try our best to retain an open mind on every
>matter - no easy task! I am "naturally disrespectful" by nature (as some may
>have noticed?), so when I'm told by 'experts' (a dangerous title!) that
>something is 'fact', rather than question their qualifications and
>experience, ask who deemed them 'an expert' in the first place, or believe
>what they say without question, I do my best to look at their point(s), look
>at the opinions of others, look at it myself and see what looks likely?
>Usually the 'experts' are right, but quite often I'm unsatisfied. Very
>occasionally I see something they have overlooked, connections they may not
>have considered as I have expertise in other fields that they don't, or have
>discovered something myself by chance.
>
>This can be vital with regard to archaeology in particular, and other things
>I have no training in whatsoever such as art history. When it comes to
>parapsychology, ghosts, magic, UFO's, Dark Matter and religion, even more
>so. How many times have I heard "there are no such things as ghosts!" said
>smugly by 'expert' scientists? We all know that there are....
>
Martin is, of course correct - if we are being serious... Nietzsche saw
the phenomena of religion and history and drew his own conclusions,
closed the book and departed the scene. In the present day we have some
of the answers to his questions - and some of the questions to his
answers :). On a good day he might have considered himself an expert but
mostly not...
Was he an "Expert" or an untrained amateur..?
>
>
>
--
Bryn Fraser
~~~~~~~~~~~ ;)
There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of
phenomena...
Nietzsche [BGE 108]
erilar
<ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I seems to me that people tend to get shouted down by the Experts
> >somewhere between the recognition of phenomena and forming a
> >hypothesis...
>
> >The scientific method... or just plain bullying?
> >>
>
> The opposite also happens. In the US right now there
> is a campaign to allow theories of human origins other
> than evolution to be taught at public expense. A number
> of jurisdictions either have or are considering going
> along with this.
>
> It is an example of bullying by untrained amateurs... ;-)
OH, YES! Both happen. There are many kinds of bullies!
erilar
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Martin is, of course correct - if we are being serious... Nietzsche saw
> the phenomena of religion and history and drew his own conclusions,
> closed the book and departed the scene. In the present day we have some
> of the answers to his questions - and some of the questions to his
> answers :). On a good day he might have considered himself an expert but
> mostly not...
>
> Was he an "Expert" or an untrained amateur..?
>
Somewhere in between, and definitely an out-of-the-box thinker! 8-)
Paul J Gans
[...]
>Martin is, of course correct - if we are being serious... Nietzsche saw
>the phenomena of religion and history and drew his own conclusions,
>closed the book and departed the scene. In the present day we have some
>of the answers to his questions - and some of the questions to his
>answers :). On a good day he might have considered himself an expert but
>mostly not...
>Was he an "Expert" or an untrained amateur..?
There are other categories besides those two. I think that
the major distinction is methodology. The "professional"
brings two things to bear on a problem -- methodology
accepted in the field and previous knowledge of the
problem and related things.
In that sense "amateurs" can certainly be professional. And
some professionals (in the sense of being paid for their
work) can be very amateurish.
In medieval history, there are certain things that everyone
with any training simply knows and takes for granted. One
is that naked sources cannot be trusted. Another is that
everything is provisional and subject to change as new information
comes to the front. So when a medievalist writes "This is what
happened:", what is meant is "This is my reconstruction of what
might have happened, subject to revision in the light of new evidence
and subject to refinement as I assimilate more currently known
evidence."
Science works the same way.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
comes to the front.
So when a medievalist writes "This is what happened:", what is meant is
"This is my reconstruction of what might have happened, subject to
revision in the light of new evidence and subject to refinement as I
assimilate more currently known evidence."
Paul J. Gans
----------------------
"The final word in this story was written by history. The Roman neck
harness has not survived. Replaced first by the breast strap and also
later by the horse collar, the neck harness is no longer used."
Paul J. Gans
-----------------------
"I've had my say on horse harnesses. My pages are up, my sources are
cited. I'll stand by them.
Sorry that I'm refusing to play your silly game. All this was argued
years ago and is quite settled.
The medieval horse harness replaced earlier harnesses. Period."
Paul J. Gans
Hilarious!
How this Gans does LOVE to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
-------------------------------
David Read countered:
David Read
And Then Added:
David Read
-------------------------
"David, I am not about to re-open the horsecollar debate."
Paul J. Gans
And:
"All this was argued years ago and is quite settled."
Paul J. Gans
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
How this Gans does LOVE to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
Gans wants NOTHING to do with "Inconvenient Historical Facts" ---- as
presented by David Read.
D. Spencer Hines
plenty of time to chatter about all sorts of Off-Topic Topics:
Gun Control Laws
Powers of Congress
The Iran-Iraq War
The War On Terrorism
The Looming War With Iraq
Tony Blair
George W. Bush
"Criminals" in the Bush 43 Administration
"Liberal" Parents
Patriotism
Service in the American Armed Forces
Admiral Nelson At Copenhagen and Trafalgar
Canadian Moral Superiority
Polls
The "Arab Street"
"Fundys"
Et Cetera Ad Nauseam....
But he can't find the time or muster up the effort to respond to David
Read on Horse Harnesses, Horse Collars and Horse Bits ---- Roman,
Mediaeval And Modern....
A subject that is very much ON-TOPIC....
Gans LOVES those Read Herrings....
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
How Curious, Entertaining ---- and Hilarious it is that Gans, my pet
marmot, has plenty of time ---- and is willing to make the effort ----
to chatter about all sorts of OFF-TOPIC TOPICS:
Gun Control Laws
Powers of Congress
The Iran-Iraq War
The War On Terrorism
The Looming War With Iraq
Tony Blair
George W. Bush
"Criminals" in the Bush 43 Administration
"Liberal" Parents
Patriotism
Service in the American Armed Forces
Admiral Nelson at Copenhagen and Trafalgar
Canadian Moral Superiority
Polls
The "Arab Street"
"Fundys" ["Fundies"]
Et Cetera Ad Nauseam....
But he can't find the time or muster up the effort to respond to David
Read on Horse Harnesses, Horse Collars and Horse Bits ---- Roman,
Mediaeval And Modern....
A subject that is very much ON-TOPIC....
Gans LOVES those Red Herrings....And Throws Them Out Left And Right, and
Over His Head ---- Even If He Has To Pull Them Out Of His Arse....
Martin Reboul
E. C. Lee wrote...
> Martin Reboul wrote...
>
> <much snipped>
> >
> > They represented things as they saw them (not 'accurately' exactly, by
> > stylististically - look at their guns for instance?). The clues and
hints
> > are often there.
> >
> Well, "saw" might not be the best word. "Thought of" might be better,
> or perhaps "perceived". As for clues and hints being there, that's is
> a good point. It's often depicted as a kind of shorthand.
Bad expression on my part, well put Eve. Maybe I should have added 'liked
to' to the word 'see'?
This brings me to another intriguing subject - caricature. Medieval
pictures, particularly illustrations in manuscripts from the mid to late
15th C, depict events such as battles, coronations, funerals and other
events, including prominent people. Not always the work of good artists,
they are often extremely fanciful, but I think many are overlooked or
dismissed as sources of information - especially about the physical
appearance of characters we all know of, but have no reliable portraits of?
My particular interest is Richard Neville, Warwick the Kingmaker. I was
stirred by PM Kendal's (almost opening line) of his 1957 biography that
asserted that no portrait of RN survives, his face had been lost in time.
Not so I found when I went looking - I found several representations of him,
from line drawings to later portraits probably copied from earlier works,
which give good clues about some of his (rather distinctive) features.
I also 'discovered' (some in "Wars of the Roses" coffee table books) other
likely representations of the man which are hinted at by symbolism or
heraldry, yet never AFAIK acknowledged as being him. One (from John
Lydgate's 'Troy Book' shows him, his bro. John, Lord Montagu and probably
bro. George as well, at the investiture of W Herbert as Earl of Pembroke
(Warwick on left with sword - his expression speaks for itself! And why is
'Geo' winking like that I wonder?). King Edward IV is quite well caricatured
I'd say?
Another one shows the second coronation of Henry VI, c/w white beard (from a
psalter,1470) - and who is that on the left, with moustache, ermine hat
(hint of hidden 'crown'?), big nose, heavy eyes.. and look at his right
hand? Very clever I don't think... very obvious? Why is he looking at the
ground... whoever it is, he's been caracatured, not well, but....
Put them all together and I think you get quite a good impression of what
Warwick the Kingmaker actually looked like?
> IMHO visual languages are like other languages, and people don't
> realize this. Some words in other languages are familiar enough to us
> that we can make out their meaning. Some *seem" familiar to us, but
> are deceptive in that we assume we know their meanings but we don't at
> all. Of course when dealing with the past you have the same problem
> you do in deciphering languages of the past. Even when you know the
> translations, the *meaning* of the word might not be the same as how
> we use it. Like the word "love", for example. For example, sometimes
> the Medieval idea of *love* had different meanings from the ones we
> use today. This was a key in the great John Boswell debacle.
A very difficult word to use and interpret today, never mind in the past!
Strangely, one lamentable weakness in the English language. We usually have
many words to describe 'senses' or 'feelings' in various levels of intensity
or degrees of acceptability, for instance, 'smell' :-
Odour, scent, whiff, aroma, stench, fetor, ronk (midlands), reek... to name
but a few.
But 'love'...? Love God, thy neighbour, mistress, wife, family, country,
friend, food, drink, dog, art, music etc. - all with the same word?
It get's worse. You can love getting drunk, driving too fast, watching
fights and oral sex (hopefully not at the same time), watching Arsenal win
(or lose) - it goes on forever.
Most inadequate somehow?
> Sometimes translating images isn't difficult, at other times it can
> very complex, requiring both knowledge and understanding. And
> aspects of visual language can change depending on region and the
> specific time period . Sometimes meanings can also change in the
> context that they're used, so a visual "dictionary" doesn't always
> work.
As with standards of beauty. Symbolism in art is a fascinating, complicated
and often well hidden in very clever ways - it's supposed to be. Much
remains unseen, never mind misunderstood - however, if anyone knows that
HenryVI re-adeption picture, have a look at the character I mentioned and
look at his right hand? Who else could it be? Be 'supposed' to be anyway...?
Also there's a coronation picture of Ed IV, with a very distinctive
character in armour, holding a sword and looking on (Lydgate's Troy Book I
think). Bourchier and Edward are caricatured - so is he... Warwick I reckon
(looks like him?). I've never seen these things mentioned before?
I'm not an expert, and I may well be wrong, but I have spotted these things
independently, mentioned them and would like to discuss them? Maybe through
that more may come to light.
Okay, it isn't a vital or important historical detail, but I'm sure many
people out there are curious to know what Warwick looked like - another
little piece in the jigsaw of history? Unfortunately, PM Kendal is long
dead - I'd like to thank him for starting me off and see what he thought (he
doubtless knew all these pictures, but probably never looked at thim as I
did).
Kendal was undoubtedly a great historian, a fine researcher, methodical,
dedicated, with a lifetime of study - I have none of those qualities and
probably never will, but I think in a different way and know about other
subjects that he probably didn't? That's why this forum of SHM is so useful
and potentially
important I'd say? Maybe I shouldn't take it for granted.....
> However, just as historians don't throw in the towel when faced with
> the obstacles of original writings, art historians take the
> information they are given and try to find out how it can be used in
> an understanding of the past.
>
> <more snip>
> >
> > Yet it was depicted.... as it 'should' look (according to them).
>
> Sorry to niggle here, but *should* might imply idealization. A
> *shorthand* of the most important elements might be a truer
> definition. At times you might have the idealized concept transposed
> through a stylized image. A stylized image based on then understood
> conventions.
> Look at some pictures of armoured men in battle. Absurd, it would
> > never work, but it looks 'classy' ?
>
> YES! And in seeing that, you learn that "classy" appearance was an
> important value in those days. A good translation might be that it
> looked "cool". Of course, in battle that wouldn't be important and
> probably would be foolish to dwell on.
I did mean stylised and idealised I suppose, thinking of pictures of
armoured men, animals and castles (as usual!). Those lovely trim waists,
long elegant legs and perfect 'blackened shine' are idealised, though based
on a structural reality (probably dented, rusting and covered in mud and
blood in battle). The participants were probaby grubby and unshaven, not
wearing nicely tailored bumfreezer jackets in bright colours... idealised
and also stylised?
> A good comparison could be
> found in Shunga, Japanese erotic art. The positions shown are
> physically impossible, but they express eroticism to their audience.
Just had a look at some of them actually... hmmm! Not with my back, but when
I was younger.... yes, well, never mind. I suppose eroticism can be
extremely uncomfortable sometimes....?
> There was even a poem written about how stupid it would be to try to
> duplicate such positions in real life and making fun of anyone who was
> so naive as to not realize this.
*After* the illustration I suppose - a cruel joke!
> However, if you look at the structure of the plates, the
> > rivets and the 'idea' of it, you can see they were drawing a real thing,
> > as
> > we have surviving armour to compare it with (The Rous Roll is a fine
> > example).
>
> It reminds me of ancient Greek art. There's a strong emphasis on male
> musculature and parts of the body that move.
Apart from one rather important one... mind you, I suppose it isn't supposed
to 'move' when one is throwing a discus or killing Hydras?
> That's because it
> represented a major aspect of their culture. It meant a physical
> preparedness for battle which was essential for their culture's
> survival. We tend to think of how "real" Greek statues appear, and
> part of this is our familiarity with an artistic heritage inherited
> from the Greeks. But real? They eliminated a lot of what was
> considered non-essential, like body hair, and individual facial
> features (until the Hellenistic times). These elements weren't as
> important to them because they weren't important to their culture.
>
> > A modern equivalent is the Barbie doll - an impossible, absurd depiction
> > of a woman - stylised. We know what she's supposed to be and she
> > pleases many
> > eyes it seems, as I think she's nearly 50 now , and still in production?
>
> A really good and understandable comparison! Our society outwardly
> interprets Barbie as a good looking woman. If we seriously scrutenize
> her or try to translate her into reality, she'd be a freak. But what
> does she tell us about the ideal of beauty in our society? A lot! So
> a historian in the future couldn't take Barbie as representative of
> any "real" woman but could interpret our ideals through her.
Barbie would not have sold so well in Reubens time I expect? Those
prehistoric 'Venus' figures are supremely unattractive IMO, in fact little
more than the (ahem!) 'essential female parts' alone? Whether they were
supposed to be 'attractive' or 'erotic' though, I don't know.
> <more snips and thanks for your confidence in my analysis!>
My pleasure dear lady...
> > The 'untrained amateur' often
> > considers avenues and possibilities closed off to formally trained (and
> > sometimes out of touch) minds, and valuable discoveries are made.
>
> Quite true. Sometimes experts get inbred and lose the ability to see
> outside the box. There are also those amateurs who are naturally
> "intuitive"in a field. I'm currently corresponding with someone about
> art history. He doesn't have the training, but I'm constantly amazed
> at the wonderful observations he brings to the table.
As with our recent correspondence here about 'The Ambassadors'? I still
haven't been to the NG, for shame! Yet that shows what different peoplewith
different interests, experience and skills can do if working together and
throwing out suggestions and ideas - just for 'fun?
> Martin mentioned imagination and that might imply to someone the
> making of something out of whole cloth. But I think what Martin means
> is someone who has the ability to see things with some sort of extra
> dimension. This imagination enables them to put together disparate
> elements of data and then come up with insights not readily apparent
> to the less imaginative viewer. You might also call this skill
> "talent".
Of which you have plenty it seems Eve.
Pray tell me more of this "Erotic Art History"... quite fascinating!
Cheers
Martin
Paul J Gans
>plenty of time to chatter about all sorts of Off-Topic Topics:
>Gun Control Laws
>Powers of Congress
>The Iran-Iraq War
>The War On Terrorism
>The Looming War With Iraq
>Tony Blair
>George W. Bush
>"Criminals" in the Bush 43 Administration
>"Liberal" Parents
>Patriotism
>Service in the American Armed Forces
>Admiral Nelson At Copenhagen and Trafalgar
>Canadian Moral Superiority
>Polls
>The "Arab Street"
>"Fundys"
>Et Cetera Ad Nauseam....
>But he can't find the time or muster up the effort to respond to David
>Read on Horse Harnesses, Horse Collars and Horse Bits ---- Roman,
>Mediaeval And Modern....
Really bugs you, doesn't it? ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Simon Pugh
>
>As with our recent correspondence here about 'The Ambassadors'? I still
>haven't been to the NG, for shame! Yet that shows what different peoplewith
>different interests, experience and skills can do if working together and
>throwing out suggestions and ideas - just for 'fun?
>
>
>
>
>
>
challenge". That was my crazy idea that the polyhedral sundial contained
a reference to the Tordesillas line.
At the time I had a brief correspondence about it with the author of The
Ambassadors Secret. (Recently published book on the painting)
Needless to say he didn't believe it. :) He accepted that the logic was
broadly OK but he felt that, although Kratzer had the knowledge
required, it was too modern a view to have been thought of at the time.
(Kratzer is thought to have been Holbein's scientific advisor for the
painting and the theory was based on time changes at different
longitudes.)
E. C. Lee
> E. C. Lee wrote...
> > Martin Reboul wrote...
> >
> > <much snipped>
> My particular interest is Richard Neville, Warwick the Kingmaker. I was
> stirred by PM Kendal's (almost opening line) of his 1957 biography that
> asserted that no portrait of RN survives, his face had been lost in time.
> Not so I found when I went looking - I found several representations of him,
> from line drawings to later portraits probably copied from earlier works,
> which give good clues about some of his (rather distinctive) features.
> I also 'discovered' (some in "Wars of the Roses" coffee table books) other
> likely representations of the man which are hinted at by symbolism or
> heraldry, yet never AFAIK acknowledged as being him. One (from John
> Lydgate's 'Troy Book' shows him, his bro. John, Lord Montagu and probably
> bro. George as well, at the investiture of W Herbert as Earl of Pembroke
> (Warwick on left with sword - his expression speaks for itself! And why is
> 'Geo' winking like that I wonder?). King Edward IV is quite well caricatured
> I'd say?
> Another one shows the second coronation of Henry VI, c/w white beard (from a
> psalter,1470) - and who is that on the left, with moustache, ermine hat
> (hint of hidden 'crown'?), big nose, heavy eyes.. and look at his right
> hand? Very clever I don't think... very obvious? Why is he looking at the
> ground... whoever it is, he's been caracatured, not well, but....
> Put them all together and I think you get quite a good impression of what
> Warwick the Kingmaker actually looked like?
>
Interesting. Unfortunately, when I was looking for images of Philip
Augustus the only one I came across that was supposedly true to his
looks, was discredited by more reputable books as a statue of a much
later date incorrectly titled as a portrait. I did see some
manuscript paintings of Philip that clearly were not portraits but
rather "ideas" of the king. Of course, this is a much earlier date
than you're dealing with and the genuine portrait was more firmly
established in the 15th century. Your examples have a much better
chance of being some sort of likeness.
> > IMHO visual languages are like other languages, and people don't
> > realize this. Some words in other languages are familiar enough to us
> > that we can make out their meaning. Some *seem" familiar to us, but
> > are deceptive in that we assume we know their meanings but we don't at
> > all. Of course when dealing with the past you have the same problem
> > you do in deciphering languages of the past. Even when you know the
> > translations, the *meaning* of the word might not be the same as how
> > we use it. Like the word "love", for example. For example, sometimes
> > the Medieval idea of *love* had different meanings from the ones we
> > use today. This was a key in the great John Boswell debacle.
>
> A very difficult word to use and interpret today, never mind in the past!
> Strangely, one lamentable weakness in the English language. We usually have
> many words to describe 'senses' or 'feelings' in various levels of intensity
> or degrees of acceptability, for instance, 'smell' :-
> Odour, scent, whiff, aroma, stench, fetor, ronk (midlands), reek... to name
> but a few.
>
> But 'love'...? Love God, thy neighbour, mistress, wife, family, country,
> friend, food, drink, dog, art, music etc. - all with the same word?
> It get's worse. You can love getting drunk, driving too fast, watching
> fights and oral sex (hopefully not at the same time), watching Arsenal win
> (or lose) - it goes on forever.
> Most inadequate somehow?
>
Add to that the Medieval definitions which we often have trouble
comprehending. How many people today can understand a passionate love
devoid of any physical sexuality? Or the ennobling love of an
unattainable object of desire? The idea of a love of one's lord is
pretty much obsolete. How about the politically expedient love of
one's allies? Even the love shared by Medieval husbands and wives had
a different meaning than the love we expect of spouses today. And can
we even understand the intensity of Medieval religious love?
<snip>
>
> As with standards of beauty. Symbolism in art is a fascinating, complicated
> and often well hidden in very clever ways - it's supposed to be.
Not necessarily. In many cases the symbols were meant to be readily
recognized and contemplated. Of course, in other cases they were
meant to be pondered as esoteric knowledge. Rather nice. A meaning
for all and then another reserved for those "in the know".
Much
> remains unseen, never mind misunderstood - however, if anyone knows that
> HenryVI re-adeption picture, have a look at the character I mentioned and
> look at his right hand? Who else could it be? Be 'supposed' to be anyway...?
Do you have a copy of it anywhere? Or a web address?
> Also there's a coronation picture of Ed IV, with a very distinctive
> character in armour, holding a sword and looking on (Lydgate's Troy Book I
> think). Bourchier and Edward are caricatured - so is he... Warwick I reckon
> (looks like him?). I've never seen these things mentioned before?
>
> I'm not an expert, and I may well be wrong, but I have spotted these things
> independently, mentioned them and would like to discuss them? Maybe through
> that more may come to light.
>
I don't know the art of the area during this period, but I'd be
interested in taking a look.
> Okay, it isn't a vital or important historical detail, but I'm sure many
> people out there are curious to know what Warwick looked like - another
> little piece in the jigsaw of history? Unfortunately, PM Kendal is long
> dead - I'd like to thank him for starting me off and see what he thought (he
> doubtless knew all these pictures, but probably never looked at thim as I
> did).
>
> Kendal was undoubtedly a great historian, a fine researcher, methodical,
> dedicated, with a lifetime of study - I have none of those qualities and
> probably never will, but I think in a different way and know about other
> subjects that he probably didn't? That's why this forum of SHM is so useful
> and potentially
> important I'd say? Maybe I shouldn't take it for granted.....
<snip>
> > A good comparison could be
> > found in Shunga, Japanese erotic art. The positions shown are
> > physically impossible, but they express eroticism to their audience.
>
> Just had a look at some of them actually... hmmm! Not with my back, but when
> I was younger.... yes, well, never mind.
I'm sure. ;-) I imagine at one time you and your pals also
attempted the jigsaw puzzle art that you find in India where the dozen
or so participants end up linked together to form fanciful shapes such
as elephants?
I suppose eroticism can be
> extremely uncomfortable sometimes....?
>
It rather defeats the purpose IMHO. Of course Shunga wasn't suppose
to be it a blueprint. It was meant to express rather than
demonstrate.
BTW, in Japanese art you're more likely to find elegantly attired
lovers than naked ones because the fabrics were considered sensual,
elegant, items of status, etc. I suspect that fine fabric held a
similiar function in the Middle Ages. One of our clothing experts
here might know more about that.
Of course, in Japanese art certain fabrics also suggested specific
areas which were known for the sexual trade. This is something that
we may not consider--the significance of the origin of the things
represented. This was discussed from a Renaissance perspective in
Lisa Jardine's "Worldly Goods".
<snip>
Our society outwardly
> > interprets Barbie as a good looking woman. If we seriously scrutenize
> > her or try to translate her into reality, she'd be a freak. But what
> > does she tell us about the ideal of beauty in our society? A lot! So
> > a historian in the future couldn't take Barbie as representative of
> > any "real" woman but could interpret our ideals through her.
>
> Barbie would not have sold so well in Reubens time I expect?
They would have had to use a different version, no doubt. Something
more closely related to the Cabbage Patch doll. Can you imagine the
Medieval Barbie? They actually have such a thing, but she's portrayed
in the typical Barbie proportions. No high foreheads, protruding
tummies or small apple like breasts. Barbie has many historic and
ethnic guises but they are closer to Hollywood images than anything
authentic.
Those
> prehistoric 'Venus' figures are supremely unattractive IMO, in fact little
> more than the (ahem!) 'essential female parts' alone? Whether they were
> supposed to be 'attractive' or 'erotic' though, I don't know.
>
Some think they represent fertility or "the Great Mother". I don't
think they were meant to be inspirational "pin-ups," but who knows?
What constituted a "turn-on" might have been more basic back then.
> Pray tell me more of this "Erotic Art History"... quite fascinating!
I'm glad you find it a stimulating subject! There is something
seductive about its study. However, tempting as it is to jump around
with you through time and place following the topic, perhaps we should
make an effort to stick to its application during the Middle Ages and
Renaissance.
JMHO,
Eve
DON HARRINGTON
news:3DEFAA2E...@ou.edu...
> Renia wrote:
[snip]
> > Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
> > now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
> > understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
> > painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile.
>
> I wonder if this is backwards? Maybe it goes like this: the ancient
> Egyptians seldom painted full-frontal portrayals, so they were less
> skilled at it than the popular profile images.
[snip]
I would be cautious about saying that a culture spanning centuries lacked
any particular skill. As I remember from good old art history classes
<mumble> years ago, one of the Egyptian canons for painted art was for the
clearest possible portrayal of all elements of the figure. From their point
of view the profile was easier to identify as a human head than the frontal
view, so heads were shown in profile. However, the eye is more easily
recognized from the front than from the side, so you get the odd effect of
heads painted in profile, but with the eye staring straight at you.
Likewise, they made sure to show both arms and both legs so that you knew
they were all there. I believe it is a question of style rather than skill.
Don Harrington
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
len jones
news:3df9ee11$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
> [snip]
>
> I would be cautious about saying that a culture spanning centuries lacked
> any particular skill. As I remember from good old art history classes
> <mumble> years ago, one of the Egyptian canons for painted art was for the
> clearest possible portrayal of all elements of the figure. From their
point
> of view the profile was easier to identify as a human head than the
frontal
> view, so heads were shown in profile. However, the eye is more easily
> recognized from the front than from the side, so you get the odd effect of
> heads painted in profile, but with the eye staring straight at you.
> Likewise, they made sure to show both arms and both legs so that you knew
> they were all there. I believe it is a question of style rather than
skill.
>
> Don Harrington
Do you have an explanation as to why the two horned wild ass was shown in
profile so that only one horn was visible? The Greeks called this a
unicorn, possibly as a joke. Hence the King James has six references to
unicorns.
Len Jones
Contrarius
"Simon Pugh" <Ne...@mrzsp.demonX.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9IHVEeI4...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
> Clearly they are not engineering drawings but surely they are still of
> value?
Unlikely. (:
C
Contrarius
> In message <9mOH9.214$yy4....@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
> <D._Spenc...@usa.aya.yale.edu> writes
> >"Is this a matter of the artist not understanding or remembering the
> >machinery? Or just not caring about what we consider to be an accurate
> >depiction?"
> >
> >Katherine Tredwell
> >This is why using artistic representations, paintings, as some sort of
> >proof-positive for supposedly authoritative statements on Mediaeval
> >Technology is such a silly-buggers enterprise.
I think medieval art has a lot to say about the social and intellectual
character of the period - but I'm not sure exactly what, except that it was
sure backward! Not only did medieval "artists" get major proportions wrong
(castles, ships, horses, etc.), they got noses, ears, noses, just about
everything wrong. There was an astonishing disappearance of drawing and
sculpting ability between 500 AD and 1000 AD. Not only did the Meds
consistently fail to get the proportions right, they didn't even bother to
depict values, shadows, highlights, tonality, depth, texture, or much else
except basic contours - and even those were lousy. Most medieval
illustrations - even those of Jesus, whom one would think would get the
royal treatment - were childish caricatures, no better than badly drawn
cartoons. Compare the clumsy grotesquerie you find in Romanesque churches
with the beautifully proportioned Roman sculptures, or goofy medieval
drawings with the exquisite Roman paintings and mosaics from Pompeii and
North Africa. This gap is often explained by a declining hope for this
world and a greater concern with the next. Perhaps, but there's no shortage
of bawdy sensuality and materialism in the Med. literature. Nor was it a
matter of iconography; their secular drawings were no better than their
religious ones. On the other hand, the deeply religious paintings of the
ItalRen had wonderful proportions and dimensionality.
I've never heard of any ancient Roman conservatories, so I've always
assumed most Roman artists were slaves who learned their skills from
masters or from other slaves. I guess the decline could be attributed to
the collapse of those master-apprentice relationships during the ascendency
of the northern tribes and the destruction of Roman libraries and other
institutions. But there is such a thing as a self-trained artist, and it
doesn't take a trained eye to compare drawing with subject. You'd think
there'd have been SOME competent self-trained medieval artists. On the
whole, art has been superior in just about every historical period before
and since - even the cave paintings at Lascaux were better drawn! I dunno,
maybe the lords and ladies were just too busy fighting and praying to take
the time to figure out how to make a picture.
Every time I look at a medieval painting or sculpture, I'm appalled to see
such pitiful work. One wonders why they bothered at all. Are there any good
resources that explain the decline?
C
E. C. Lee
> news:3DEFAA2E...@ou.edu...
> > Renia wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Technical skill and realism in art have come a long way since then, but
> > > now, as then, the visual image is the artist's representation of what he
> > > understands. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had little skill in
> > > painting full-face, so many images are seen in profile.
> >
> > I wonder if this is backwards? Maybe it goes like this: the ancient
> > Egyptians seldom painted full-frontal portrayals, so they were less
> > skilled at it than the popular profile images.
> [snip]
>
> I would be cautious about saying that a culture spanning centuries lacked
> any particular skill. As I remember from good old art history classes
> <mumble> years ago, one of the Egyptian canons for painted art was for the
> clearest possible portrayal of all elements of the figure. From their point
> of view the profile was easier to identify as a human head than the frontal
> view, so heads were shown in profile. However, the eye is more easily
> recognized from the front than from the side, so you get the odd effect of
> heads painted in profile, but with the eye staring straight at you.
> Likewise, they made sure to show both arms and both legs so that you knew
> they were all there. I believe it is a question of style rather than skill.
>
> Don Harrington
>
it impossible to move, therefore it's in a timeless state. The desire
was to make an image that went beyond the temporal. Figures of
slaves, etc. were less important and more tied to moving world.
Therefore, they could be shown in a less permanant condition.
Eve
Paul J Gans
Why do you think that art must be representational? Certainly
much modern art is not.
The medievals (early ones at least) were not into photorealistic
depictions.
And I don't agree with you about sculpture. There are some
marvelous examples. True, they are not up to the Greek
standard of male beauty, but then those sculptures aren't
realistic either -- just idealistic.
---- Paul J. Gans
Simon Pugh
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Contrarius <Contr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<Snip>
>>Every time I look at a medieval painting or sculpture, I'm appalled to see
>>such pitiful work. One wonders why they bothered at all. Are there any good
>>resources that explain the decline?
>
>Why do you think that art must be representational? Certainly
>much modern art is not.
>
>The medievals (early ones at least) were not into photorealistic
>depictions.
>
>And I don't agree with you about sculpture. There are some
>marvelous examples. True, they are not up to the Greek
>standard of male beauty, but then those sculptures aren't
>realistic either -- just idealistic.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
I wonder if Contrarius would find this example of medieval art pitiful?
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/images/heures/heures.html
E. C. Lee
considered important. And though you may not find Medieval art
beautiful, many others do. The reason you don't find them beautiful
may well be because you have different cultural expectations. From
the sounds of it, you want idealized images placed in a space that
duplicates your eyes perceptions and your sense of order. That's
quite natural given our culture.
However, this is not what the art of the Middle Ages is all about.
For starters, I can't really talk about the art of the Middle Ages,
but rather specific periods and places within the Middle Ages, as
throughout the time period the art was constantly changing (and it
varied from place to place). Some of the values that are demonstrated
at this time might be in the use of pattern and the more formal
elements. They would probably find beauty through the use of line and
color. They might also be concerned with the feelings the art evokes
through the stylistic portrayal of emotion. And odds are that they
would be more concerned with workmanship than we usually are today.
Another element might be in how they are relaying a message through
their art. You might not understand their language of symbol and
story so part of the beauty of how that is integrated might be lost to
you. Something that you consider astoundingly beautiful today might
come across as meanless and vapid to them. Or even sacreligious.
Their world view was different. So was their view in general.
Space is a complicated issue. We're used to single point
persepective, but there are many other options. Color can give
perspective, not just line. At times they wanted the eye to dart
around to look at different perspectives not focusing on a single
object. Perhaps even manipulating your eye so that you look at one
thing or another in an order so that you can better understand the
works meaning. Going to another culture, I want to throw in that in
Chinese landscapes perspective is portrayed so that rather than
having a view looking in at a single point in the picture, the
impression is as if one were *in* the picture looking out.
For one reason or another, flatness can also be the desired effect.
The flat decorated surface. Very popular in modern art as well. In
such a case you wouldn't even want to use the tricks of perspective
and would hardly bother to observe and develop them.
There are also things such as hierachical scale that makes no sense to
us visually, but can be extremely important to many cultures. This
again, is not lack of understanding. It's just a different goal.
You might also want to consider that sometimes Medieval works were
just part of a greater scheme and they don't always work to their
optimum outside of their context. Their purpose is different from
that of modern art which is often just to stand alone in a gallery or
on a wall. To fully appreciate some of them you have to imagine how
they place a part in their original setting.
As with the Egyptians, there are times when Medieval art is
deliberately non-naturalistic because they are trying to portray
"another world" outside the rules of our own. Our visual world might
seem mundane to them. So if you want to find beauty in Medieval art
you can either try to understand their values and divorce yourself
from your own to appreciate and enjoy what they are doing. Or you can
just try to divorce yourself from your expectations and find the
beauty in elements that you did not previously consider. Still, you
might just not like it. It might just be a question of personal
taste.
In addition to change in goals, BTW, during this time you also get new
influences. That's another reason for changes in art from the Romans.
The interest in pattern, BTW, has often been credited to the influx
of Germanic and other Northern tribes. Actually, Roman art had been
heading in that direction all along via Eastern influences. And a lot
of the Medieval emotionalism has been linked to a Byzantine influence.
There are also links with Islamic art. What you might think of as
primitive and amateurish can actually be quite sophisticated. You
might just not be considering the right things.
I also want to add there was some incredibly high standards of
workmanship, even in the very earliest period you're talking about.
Sometimes the greatest art, BTW was not done in painting. Our culture
has developed a status among the arts that assumes that painting is
the queen of the arts. This isn't always the case. Depends on the
culture. In fact, IMHO it really isn't true in our culture today even
though we hang on to that dated notion. The workmanship of the
European invaders in metal, BTW, was exceptional. However, as the
importance of books increased (especially the production of Bibles)
and the painting of manuscript illustrations began to show some
amazing things. If you look for them.
Hope this makes sense and isn't filled with typos and other errors. I
had to dash it off quickly! ;-)
BTW, I love Romanesque art. I find it imaginative, complex and often
very moving. But that's JMHO,
Eve
Contrarius
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "Contrarius" <Contr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<e0vK9.4955
> It's not a question of decline as much as a change in what's
> considered important. And though you may not find Medieval art
> beautiful, many others do.
I'll climb down a rung or two and agree that there is some beautiful work
from the Medieval period. The exceptional but nonetheless gorgeous Book of
Hours is probably the greatest example. The exquisite ring recently found
by our own breathtakingly fortunate John Wilson is beautifully shaped and
proportioned.
I should have been more specific. There were many beautiful things made
during the Medieval period, and that especially applies to ornamentation.
Many of the illuminated manuscripts are fantastic. Some of the fabrics and
tapestries are stunning. But that's a different issue. They may have made
pretty objects, but the art of accurately representing people and things
virtually disappeared. I'm not a fanatic about photorealism; all periods
and cultures stylize their images to some degree. But I'm not talking about
abstraction or stylization, I'm talking about a lack of basic drafting
skills. Fifteen thousand years ago, the cave artists of southern Europe
could DRAW THEIR BUTTS OFF; so could Jackson Pollack, and the Egyptians,
and the Greeks, and the Romans, and the Chinese, and just about everyone
else in prehistory and history - except our Medievalmen!
I dunno. If the medieval world was totally under the spell of Manicheanism;
if they believed that material world was the handwork of Satan, a mere
illusion meant to lure mankind into sin, and all men and women weak, sinful
wretches, I suppose it would be spiritually dangerous to spend too much
time studying appearances. Drawing would be seen as a superficial pursuit -
we should be concerned with spirit and essence and the next life, not with
appearances in this one. Those SEEM to serve as explanations, but I don't
find them all that satisfactory. They just don't square with the
materialism that we see in other modes of expression. Or with the teachings
of the church, which had no qualms about persecuting gnostics and all the
other heretics who advocated dualism and the corrupt nature of the material
world.
> The reason you don't find them beautiful
> may well be because you have different cultural expectations. From
> the sounds of it, you want idealized images placed in a space that
> duplicates your eyes perceptions and your sense of order. That's
> quite natural given our culture.
And nearly all other cultures. I was raised on AbEx, by the way (and still
like some of it), so I'm not exactly averse to abstraction or symbolism. I
certainly don't think "realism" is the sole measure of artistic merit. But
drawing is where it all begins. And they did make the ATTEMPT - so some
small impulse to draw things accurately must have been present in the
culture. Alas, the results were rarely felicitous. As you've pointed out,
there was no lack of commitment to fine artistic work of other kinds.
Somehow drawing got the short end. Far as I know, "artist" was not an
occupation during the MA. Nor was "sculptor." "Scribe" and "stonecutter"
were about as close as one could get. That in itself must be revealing of
something, but I'm not sure what.
> And odds are that they
> would be more concerned with workmanship than we usually are today.
I can't agree with you there. In the Middle Ages, workmanship was
commonplace and concern with it was primarily utilitarian. Today, it's in
short supply and we place a high value on it for aesthetic, not
utilitarian, reasons. Consider the market prices of handmade products. An
outstanding Bugatti or pre-war Alfa will sell for three or four million
dollars; a fine handmade rocking chair can run $10,000.
> Another element might be in how they are relaying a message through
> their art. You might not understand their language of symbol and
> story so part of the beauty of how that is integrated might be lost to
> you. Something that you consider astoundingly beautiful today might
> come across as meanless and vapid to them. Or even sacreligious.
> Their world view was different. So was their view in general.
Sorry, but I'm a little confounded by your generalizations. They don't
quite explain why they couldn't be bothered to draw well! In comparison
with other civilizations, it seems like there was a glaring deficit in
their culture. It's that deficit that I'm trying to figure out.
> Space is a complicated issue. We're used to single point
> persepective, but there are many other options. Color can give
> perspective, not just line. At times they wanted the eye to dart
> around to look at different perspectives not focusing on a single
> object. Perhaps even manipulating your eye so that you look at one
> thing or another in an order so that you can better understand the
> works meaning.
Maybe, maybe not. Rationalizing their deficiencies in artistic terms
doesn't explain them, though.
> Going to another culture, I want to throw in that in
> Chinese landscapes perspective is portrayed so that rather than
> having a view looking in at a single point in the picture, the
> impression is as if one were *in* the picture looking out.
Of course their works were highly stylized, but there's no question that
Chinese artists were brilliant draftsmen. (You can tell that from their
work, distorted or not.) On the other hand, there's a BIG question
regarding medieval representations. (I can't bring myself to call most
medieval work "art," with some notable exceptions.)
> For one reason or another, flatness can also be the desired effect.
> The flat decorated surface. Very popular in modern art as well. In
> such a case you wouldn't even want to use the tricks of perspective
> and would hardly bother to observe and develop them.
Apropo to the topic, we see this differently. You seem to think that
individual artists knew how to make accurate renderings but CHOSE to draw
in a stylized manner. Well, their pictures don't have any of the usual cues
that one looks for when trying to determine whether an artist is skilled or
just faking it. Even the most stylized, abstracted paintings from most
other cultures show clear evidence that the artist understood things like
proportion, perspective, and anatomy. I think they - Medieval Europeans, as
a group - simply lacked the skill to draw well. Obviously, this lack of
skill was born of a lack of interest in learning or applying basic
rendering skills. In the great historical scheme of things, I think that
makes them exceptional, maybe even unique.
> There are also things such as hierachical scale that makes no sense to
> us visually, but can be extremely important to many cultures. This
> again, is not lack of understanding. It's just a different goal.
I think the desire to draw accurately, like the urge to make music or tell
stories, is near universal. What I'm trying to say is that there was an
empty place in medieval culture, a depiction deficit if you will. Seems
like that deficit must be a clue to a larger deficit in the culture as a
whole. But I can't quite put my finger on it.
> You might also want to consider that sometimes Medieval works were
> just part of a greater scheme and they don't always work to their
> optimum outside of their context. Their purpose is different from
> that of modern art which is often just to stand alone in a gallery or
> on a wall. To fully appreciate some of them you have to imagine how
> they place a part in their original setting.
Considered, but it wasn't a whole lot different than the role of religious
paintings and sculpture in the Renaissance.
> As with the Egyptians, there are times when Medieval art is
> deliberately non-naturalistic because they are trying to portray
> "another world" outside the rules of our own.
Hieronymus Bosch did just that. But note that his ability to draw didn't
stifle his fantasmagorical imagination. Or his distortion of perspective,
proportion, etc.
> Our visual world might
> seem mundane to them. So if you want to find beauty in Medieval art
> you can either try to understand their values and divorce yourself
> from your own to appreciate and enjoy what they are doing.
I think I'm being mis-diagnosed.
> Still, you
> might just not like it. It might just be a question of personal
> taste.
As I said, there is much to like. But I don't think I'll ever fall in love
with those silly cartoons!
C
Drew Nicholson
_differently_.
E. C. Lee
while under the gun doing other things.
"Contrarius" <Contr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<PPTN9.4020$b97.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > "Contrarius" <Contr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<e0vK9.4955
>
> > It's not a question of decline as much as a change in what's
> > considered important. And though you may not find Medieval art
> > beautiful, many others do.
>
> I'll climb down a rung or two and agree that there is some beautiful work
> from the Medieval period.
Whew! ; -)
The exceptional but nonetheless gorgeous Book of
> Hours is probably the greatest example. The exquisite ring recently found
> by our own breathtakingly fortunate John Wilson is beautifully shaped and
> proportioned.
>
> I should have been more specific. There were many beautiful things made
> during the Medieval period, and that especially applies to ornamentation.
> Many of the illuminated manuscripts are fantastic. Some of the fabrics and
> tapestries are stunning. But that's a different issue. They may have made
> pretty objects, but the art of accurately representing people and things
> virtually disappeared. I'm not a fanatic about photorealism; all periods
> and cultures stylize their images to some degree. But I'm not talking about
> abstraction or stylization, I'm talking about a lack of basic drafting
> skills. Fifteen thousand years ago, the cave artists of southern Europe
> could DRAW THEIR BUTTS OFF; so could Jackson Pollack, and the Egyptians,
> and the Greeks, and the Romans, and the Chinese, and just about everyone
> else in prehistory and history - except our Medievalmen!
>
If you look at pattern books of the times you could see that there
were some incredible drawings. It's not drawing that the issue for
you perhaps, but drawings of people? Are you confusing the ability to
draw with the ability to draw convincingly realistic renderings of
humans. If so, you have to understand that doing so isn't always the
artist's interest.
Take the Romanesque period that you mentioned before. They weren't
trying to make show the underlying skeletal structure or a muscularly
perfect human being. Most of the time they were trying to do
something called architectonic, which means they were trying to get
the human figure to conform to an overriding pattern such as the
architeture that it's attached to. Or in a book, to the letters
depicted. The human figure BECOMES part of a pattern. It's a
different goal here. And there are many instances where this sort of
thing is done magnificently. Real master works by real masters.
There are also instances where figures are manipulated to create
emotional effects. A good parallel would be with the figures you find
in Expressionist art. Are you familiar with that? Those artists were
clearly trained to do the naturalistic rendering that you might
consider "good drawings" but with the intent of expressing "feelings"
they abandon it to distort the figure. Try looking at Romanesque art
with those POVs and see if can work for you.
> I dunno. If the medieval world was totally under the spell of Manicheanism;
> if they believed that material world was the handwork of Satan, a mere
> illusion meant to lure mankind into sin, and all men and women weak, sinful
> wretches, I suppose it would be spiritually dangerous to spend too much
> time studying appearances.
Or trying to create the vanity of human appearance. Of course, this
isn't the only POV in the Middle Ages and there were times when they
DID want to exploit elements in the real world. Even here, what is it
that they want to highlight? The ugly, sinful human body or the
luxurious clothes that being rich they could afford? Or perhaps on a
more earthly note, they wanted to emphasize some exquisite long golden
hair, a lovely protruding belly, or a pair of great legs on a courtly
male?
>Drawing would be seen as a superficial pursuit -
No. Drawing *certain things* would be a superficial pursuit. At
times. Or drawing them in certain ways would be. How 'bout the
attempt of essence rather than appearance? Not that this is always
the case in Medieval art, but at times it is.
> we should be concerned with spirit and essence and the next life, not with
> appearances in this one. Those SEEM to serve as explanations, but I don't
> find them all that satisfactory.
You don't live in the Middle Ages Maybe they were satisfactory to
them. You might be trying to answer questions with your modern
expectations. And though that might work for you, as in saying, "I
don't like the art of the Middle Ages because I like an art that gives
me a sense of material realism" you can't say the artists were
inferior simply because they were doing what was considered correct in
THEIR world.
They just don't square with the
> materialism that we see in other modes of expression. Or with the teachings
> of the church, which had no qualms about persecuting gnostics and all the
> other heretics who advocated dualism and the corrupt nature of the material
> world.
>
Of course, most of this art WAS the decoration of material things.
The creation of exquisite goods justified for some reason or another.
> > The reason you don't find them beautiful
> > may well be because you have different cultural expectations. From
> > the sounds of it, you want idealized images placed in a space that
> > duplicates your eyes perceptions and your sense of order. That's
> > quite natural given our culture.
>
> And nearly all other cultures.
Huh? Most African? Indian? Japanese? Polynesian? Haitian? Native
American? Islamic? etc. etc. etc.
I was raised on AbEx, by the way (and still
> like some of it), so I'm not exactly averse to abstraction or symbolism. I
> certainly don't think "realism" is the sole measure of artistic merit. But
> drawing is where it all begins.
But you are approaching drawing as "rendering". It isn't. The line
in much of medieval art is beautiful and skilled. But it's not a line
that's trying to duplicate photographic naturalistic form. It's a
line that can be more oriented towards expression and pattern
(although, as I said before, in *some* times because there are
exceptions within the period,)
And they did make the ATTEMPT - so some
> small impulse to draw things accurately must have been present in the
> culture.
Attempt at what?
Alas, the results were rarely felicitous. As you've pointed out,
> there was no lack of commitment to fine artistic work of other kinds.
> Somehow drawing got the short end.
The kind of drawing that appeals to you. Throughout the MIddle Ages I
find incredible drawing. Eg. you might find the manuscripts of the
Ottonian period dreadful scribbles, but I find them exciting and full
of energy. When I look at drawing I'm not always looking at how well
it depicts the appearance of something. Sometimes it's a question of
the quality of the line itself. Are you familiar with Northwest Coast
Native American Art? Incredibly skilled and sensitive use of line, on
a par with Chinese brush painting. But for someone not looking for it
it might appear to be just a bunch of silly primitive pictures.
Even in the Middle Ages you're not going to come up with a masterpiece
every time and sometimes you are shown illos that illustrate points
rather than for their great achievements. But you do have to consider
a different way of looking at art. How many years ago was this made?
Look as how just within the twentieth century how many time we've
redefined what we consider art?
Far as I know, "artist" was not an
> occupation during the MA. Nor was "sculptor." "Scribe" and "stonecutter"
> were about as close as one could get. That in itself must be revealing of
> something, but I'm not sure what.
>
I think it's more indicative of the social change rather than a change
in the workmanship.
What we might consider artists were considered craftsmen and some were
considered to have superior skills over others. But are you
questioning whether or not there were "artists" in the Middle Ages or
just whether or not the Medieval talents could draw? And whether or
not theycould, are you saying that good drawing is what make one an
artist? To me is an artist is someone who can take whatever they do
and make something superior out of it. There are many people who are
excellent at drawing, but IMHO they lack the creativity or talent to
be considered artists. And there are some wonderful artists who can't
draw at all.
A lot of people judge "artists" by later definitions. Someone with a
special talent or skill who takes that talent or skill to become their
"gimmick" to sell to patrons. Some define the artist as the romantic
tortured soul who tries to express themselves through creative means.
Or some define an artist as some one who makes their living through
those things we consider "arts". The first and third definition
might apply to the Medieval craftsman. The second would probably be
considered ridiculous, although it's not to say that some tortured
souls might not have snuck in and expressed themselves within the
confines of their assignment.
> > And odds are that they
> > would be more concerned with workmanship than we usually are today.
>
> I can't agree with you there. In the Middle Ages, workmanship was
> commonplace and concern with it was primarily utilitarian.
What? You don't think a highly skilled craftsman wouldn't be
appreciated and valued? And that the buyers wouldn't be aware of such
things?
What do you think guilds were all about or long apprenticeships? And
people in those days didn't just go to the art store and buy supplies.
They had to MAKE much of their materials and in doing so had to be
very aware of what worked and what didn't. They were far closer to
the nature of their materials than they are today. Which is why works
of hundreds and hundreds of years ago tend to hold up better today
than many of the art pieces produced a decade ago. It's a lot harder
for someone to make something from scratch than it is to have it made
by a machine. If you don't know what you're doing it will fall apart.
Have you really looked at Medieval art and taken that into
consideration? Please read some books on how some of the art work was
made and prepared. It wasn't an easy process and to do it incorrectly
would usually mean the waste of valuable and expensive materials. And
since expensive materials often were considered part of the aesthetic,
this was an important factor.
Today, it's in
> short supply and we place a high value on it for aesthetic, not
> utilitarian, reasons.
You honestly think that the Medievals who were in the position to own
or donate art would not consider how well something was made was not
part of what made it beautiful and special? If that was the case why
did they pay craftsmen to do anything? They could have just thrown
together something themselves. Why were there Mastercraftsmen? Why
were they sought after? Why did a present of a beautiful object given
from one king to another considered something important? Or something
given as a gift to God. Or simply made to overwhelm one's followers
be they secular or not. Why did the theft of beautiful objects as
booty be considered worth recording? If it was JUST materials, why
did they even bother to turn it into something at all? Why did people
marvel when entering St. Denis or the court of Byzantium? And do you
think that this was merely coincidence or something calculated?
You don't think there was something special about these objects to the
people of the times? And if things were just utilitarian why bother
to embellish them at all?
Geez, how many people today have any concept of how things are made?
How many people REALLY appreciate skill or even understand it? A few,
but hardly many. It's too easy to get objects in this world made by
machinery. Lovely things. But in those days if you wanted something
special you either had to find some marvelous curiousity in nature or
make it from scratch (or steal it form someone else who had)! And
certainly marvelous things that were created with great effort were
appreciated.
This utilitarian business sounds like you're discussing the art of the
stone age. This is a complex culture you're talking about and there
was plenty of opportunities for the upper tiers of that society to
have superior items that went beyond the mere utilitarian. And with
the money to pay for them, they expected the best.
Consider the market prices of handmade products. An
> outstanding Bugatti or pre-war Alfa will sell for three or four million
> dollars; a fine handmade rocking chair can run $10,000.
>
You don't think some extraordinary piece from the Middle Ages wouldn't
fetch even more from museums and extraordinarily wealthy collectors?
Much of this stuff is so valuable you are unlikely to even see it ON
the market!
I will throw in that the Art Market is a whole other ballgame so I
really don't think judging things by the amount it fetches is all that
valuable a criteria. It has to do with demand which at times has to
do with fashion. Even something extraordinary when out of fashion
will fetch a low price. I was just reading how the paintings of Alma
Tadema, a brilliantly skilled artist from the Victorian era sold
paintings in his day for exceptionately high prices. But a generation
later one honestly couldn't even give some of his works away (on a few
occasions they tried and there were no takers!) An interest in his
art was then revived in the 60s and it's been climbing in price ever
since. Now it sells for the big bucks. At all times his skills as
demonsrated in his paintings were superb. It was the audience and
what the audience was looking for that had changed. There is a
similar story that could also be told of Burnes-Jones and other
painters.
BTW, a problem with marketing the art of the Middle Ages is that the
many pieces with religious subject matter don't appeal as much to many
private collectors. The bidders are usually museums or a select group
of educated enthusiasts. This makes prices lower than it might be for
some of the other periods. One of the reasons that the Impressionist
are so pricey is that they don't take a lot to understand them and
they are very pleasing hanging in the living room. You can't do that
with a bloody crucifix. It doesn't make Impressionism superior as a
work of art. Just more marketable. Of course, some people assume
that a high price means something is aesthetically or even technically
better.
BTW, there's a book about how the Medieval manuscript was made. I
can't recall the title off hand. I could look it up for you if you'd
like. Or if Tim is out there, I remember discussing once with him,
He might recall the title.
There are other more technical books I used to own when I studied
museum conservation. I no longer have them, but I could try to track
them down if you are interested. They go into detail as to what it
took to create these things. Perhaps you should take a look at these
books to get a greater appreciation as to what it took to make these
things. The patron, who usually knew it took more than a magic wand
to do these things, would appreciate this. A craftsman who wasn't
very good simply wouldn't last. He wouldn't be accepted among his
peers and wouldn't get any commissions.
> > Another element might be in how they are relaying a message through
> > their art. You might not understand their language of symbol and
> > story so part of the beauty of how that is integrated might be lost to
> > you. Something that you consider astoundingly beautiful today might
> > come across as meanless and vapid to them. Or even sacreligious.
> > Their world view was different. So was their view in general.
>
> Sorry, but I'm a little confounded by your generalizations. They don't
> quite explain why they couldn't be bothered to draw well!
Arrrrrrgh! You're the one who said they can't draw! I'm saying that
they could draw, but just not the way you want them to! And not that
they "couldn't" but that weren't even interested in doing so. I'm
also saying that you are defining the ability to draw with the ability
to render with naturalistic realism. And that you seem to equate
accurate naturalistic rendering as being good art.
What I was trying to say in that paragraph was that naturalistic
rendering was not a priority in Medieval art. The things I listed
above WERE high priority. It was intended to show you that there were
many other elements that were considered more important that accurate
naturalistic rendering. In judging whether or not their art was good
or bad by THEIR terms you have to consider what was important to them.
They weren't looking for someone who could draw like Michelangelo.
Not at this time. But they were looking for someone who could do
OTHER things with line, such as create a sense of elegance or emotion
or whatever.
In comparison
> with other civilizations, it seems like there was a glaring deficit in
> their culture. It's that deficit that I'm trying to figure out.
>
Deficit? Oh dear. We'll get to this later.
> > Space is a complicated issue. We're used to single point
> > persepective, but there are many other options. Color can give
> > perspective, not just line. At times they wanted the eye to dart
> > around to look at different perspectives not focusing on a single
> > object. Perhaps even manipulating your eye so that you look at one
> > thing or another in an order so that you can better understand the
> > works meaning.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Rationalizing their deficiencies in artistic terms
> doesn't explain them, though.
>
I'm not rationalizing. I'm trying to show you that since our values
are different from theirs, so are our goals. And that drawing is more
than just trying to reproduce things the way things appear to our
eyes. If I don't sing opera it doesn't mean that with operetic
training I still can't. I might just not WANT to sing opera. I might
want to sound like Sarah Vaughn. I like Sarah Vaughn. I'm going to
concentrate my energies on her technique and not than of Maria Callas.
They are both great singers, but I'd prefer to follow the style of
one over another. In fact, I bet if I was going to sell my skills I'd
be more marketable singingly like Sarah these days. But 100 years ago
it would be the other way around. See what I'm getting at?
> > Going to another culture, I want to throw in that in
> > Chinese landscapes perspective is portrayed so that rather than
> > having a view looking in at a single point in the picture, the
> > impression is as if one were *in* the picture looking out.
>
> Of course their works were highly stylized, but there's no question that
> Chinese artists were brilliant draftsmen. (You can tell that from their
> work, distorted or not.) On the other hand, there's a BIG question
> regarding medieval representations. (I can't bring myself to call most
> medieval work "art," with some notable exceptions.)
You better start clarifying things. What is art to you? The ability
to draw? The ability to render things accurately? You are sliding
back and forth on this. Personally I think art can be either or
neither.
The key is also in how you define representation! They aren't trying
to represent things the way YOU want them to. They're following their
own system. You can either try to appreciate it or just reject it.
But to say they are failures at what they are doing IMHO simply proves
that you simply don't understand or aren't interested in what they are
trying to do. They don't measure up to your limited conception of
what art is (hope I don't sound condescending here, I don't mean to
be, but I'm not sure how else to say it!)
Why can you accept the stylizations of the Chinese and not that of the
Medieval? Is it because it's closer to naturalism to you? Or because
you prefer how they deal with line over the way the Medievals do? The
Medievals do deal with line, but they don't necessarily deal with it
to represent nature. More often it is to express pattern or emotion.
I wouldn't suggest this to everyone, but perhaps you need a good dose
of formalist theory! ;-)
> > For one reason or another, flatness can also be the desired
effect.
> > The flat decorated surface. Very popular in modern art as well. In
> > such a case you wouldn't even want to use the tricks of perspective
> > and would hardly bother to observe and develop them.
>
> Apropo to the topic, we see this differently. You seem to think that
> individual artists knew how to make accurate renderings but CHOSE to draw
> in a stylized manner.
Not at all. I'm saying that they simply didn't care to make accurate
renderings. Therefore they didn't bother to learn how to do it and no
one bothered to teach it. If they did care they might have developed
a means of doing so. In fact, they DID to some extent during some of
what "we" call the various "renaissances". But why invent something
or perfect something when it doesn't serve any purpose? It's not
inferior abilities, it's abilities that are pushed in one direction
over another! I'm sure with training a good many of the Medieval
talents could produce the kind of work you want. But no one wanted
to. Not until later. And then they eventually figured out how to do
it and did.
Well, their pictures don't have any of the usual cues
> that one looks for when trying to determine whether an artist is skilled or
> just faking it.
What do you consider cues? And what are you considering here? I
think this is a big problem! What are the materials under
consideration? And the dates. If I mention a work of art, will you
say, "well, that's an exception!" Is your pool every object ever
produced in the Middle Ages? Some of the art in every period isn't
going to be done as well as the art by others. But can someone then
say, "the art of that period clearly sucks". Give me clearly marked
perimeters and I'll find you examples.
Even the most stylized, abstracted paintings from most
> other cultures show clear evidence that the artist understood things like
> proportion, perspective, and anatomy. I think they - Medieval Europeans, as
> a group - simply lacked the skill to draw well.
Arrrrrgh! What do you consider drawing well? The ability to use line
in a creative way? Or the ability to show porportion, perspective and
anatomy through line?
1. Perhaps they didn't care about proportion, perspective or anatomy?
(BTW, I assume you mean one point linear perspective here as they DO
have certain types of perspective which they do use or intentionally
deny to at times to manipulate the picture plane or one's
perceptions.) This is what I'm trying to say. The ability to show
proportion, perspective or anatomy is not necessarily the basis of an
art! These are *particular* values that *particular* cultures value
in their arts. There are other values and these other values were
often what the Medievals were concentrating on!
2. Drawing is how one uses line. It can be used to portray
proportion, anatomy and perspective. It can also be used to create
complex pattern. Or it can be used to try to convey emotion. It can
be used to suggest a psycological state. It can be used for any
combination of the above or not. Unless you are the art czar or a
facist dictator you can't declare that art or even drawing can only be
used to portray naturalistic renderings of the way we see things in
nature or it is ONLY good when it does that. Maybe it's good for you
that way, but it doesn't mean that people who don't choose to accept
your definition as lacking in abilities. And I can't see how you can
abstract art is OK when you then go ahead and say that Medieval art is
no good because it lacks single point perspective and anatomy. Hell,
there are many, many abstract painters, like Mark Rothko, or Paul
Jenkins, who don't draw at all but pretty much just use color. And
shall I even mention de Kooning?
3. All other cultures? I'm sorry but that simply isn't true and I
mentioned several cultures earlier which don't follow this aesthetic.
Obviously, this lack of
> skill was born of a lack of interest in learning or applying basic
> rendering skills. In the great historical scheme of things, I think that
> makes them exceptional, maybe even unique.
>
Not all all! There are lots of cultures who felt this way and we are
going through a time period where this is quite common in the so
called fine arts. And it has been for the last century. Naturalism
has been norm in Western Civilization because we took a turn at the
Renaissance and decided that it was a value we liked and decided to
keep it. But even with this, there were exceptional periods where
things diverged. Mannerism, for example.
BTW, what do you think of Japanese prints? Excellent draugtsmanship,
but most of the time it's flat as a board as far as perspecitve is
considered. And the anatomy is nonexistant! Are they bad artists or
just artists with different goals? In fact, the discovery of Japanese
art and their "different" way of looking at things was one of the
things that helped change the direction of Western art.
> > There are also things such as hierachical scale that makes no sense to
> > us visually, but can be extremely important to many cultures. This
> > again, is not lack of understanding. It's just a different goal.
>
> I think the desire to draw accurately,
ACCURATELY! Why do you think that your eyes are the accurate
depiction of what you see? Images can lie? What if said I wanted to
get the feeling of the thing depicted? Or just the pure pleasure of
beautiful line and color. What if all I cared about were certain
things. I only looked at someone's hands and as far as I was
concerned everything else could be a blur. In fact, I prefered to do
that to emphasize the hands. Does that make me a bad artist? Not
necessarily.
And what if I choose collage over drawing? Or photography? Does that
make me less of an artist?
Now to your other issue. How and what does one draw, if one does
choose to draw. The desire to draw the thing as one's eyes records it
goes in and out of fashion. It's been more common in our culture,
less common in most others and can't even be seen at all in some. It
is NOT a universal. It is time bound and cultural bound. You can
either stick to that as your standard of likes and dislikes, which is
fine, or try to expand your range of what might be considered
beautiful or potentially important. It doesn't matter. But to assume
that your standards are the universal standards IMHO is a form of
cultural imperialism.
like the urge to make music or tell
> stories, is near universal.
Your comparison isn't really fair. It isn't the visual arts and music
here. You're talking about a type of depiction of the visual art.
Not all visual arts. Unless you consider those arts that you don't
like *not* to be visual arts at all.
BTW, making music is not necessarily the reproduction of sounds you
hear in nature, which is how you are comparing it to the visual arts.
Yeah, people want to make music. And likewise, people do want to make
art. And they do. You just aren't accepting the art of the Middle
Ages because it's not the kind that YOU like. The Medievals were
quite happy with it. And so are many people today who do appreciate
what they did.
BTW, is there any music you don't like? I love a lot of Medieval
music , Latin music, Arab music, Celtic, contemporary Scandanavian
music, blues, jazzes, motown West African. Many other types. For
various reasons. I don't like Reggae, Polynesian, Rap, Native
American, most South African. I can explain what I like about one and
not the other. But I'm hardly going to say that these other types of
music AREN'T music, that most of their musicians aren't talented and
that people who do like them are deluded. For different reasons I
prefer some over the other. They have or don't have what I'm looking
for. It's the same thing with the visual arts.
What I'm trying to say is that there was an
> empty place in medieval culture, a depiction deficit if you will. Seems
> like that deficit must be a clue to a larger deficit in the culture as a
> whole. But I can't quite put my finger on it.
>
Frankly, IMHO the deficit isn't in the art or the culture but in your
ability to understand and appreciate it. Hope that doesn't come off
nasty. I don't mean it to be. I just think you have closed yourself
off to looking beyond your own prejudices here. You assume your way
of looking at things is the natural and the universal. It's not.
> > You might also want to consider that sometimes Medieval works were
> > just part of a greater scheme and they don't always work to their
> > optimum outside of their context. Their purpose is different from
> > that of modern art which is often just to stand alone in a gallery or
> > on a wall. To fully appreciate some of them you have to imagine how
> > they place a part in their original setting.
>
> Considered, but it wasn't a whole lot different than the role of religious
> paintings and sculpture in the Renaissance.
>
Actually, there was a difference in some ways. You might want to read
Michael Camille's book, "The Gothic Idol". But that's another issue.
BTW, as far as I'm concerned, the Renaissance is just another part of
the Middle Ages. After all, our cut-off date here is 1500.
> > As with the Egyptians, there are times when Medieval art is
> > deliberately non-naturalistic because they are trying to portray
> > "another world" outside the rules of our own.
>
> Hieronymus Bosch did just that. But note that his ability to draw didn't
> stifle his fantasmagorical imagination. Or his distortion of perspective,
> proportion, etc.
Arrrgh! Maybe we better get into what years YOU consider the Middle
Ages. IMHO he's definitely in there. Also, Bosch was highly
influenced by the previous art of the Middle Ages, particularly
manuscript painting. And do you consider Bosch to portray accurate
perspective and anatomy?
>
> > Our visual world might
> > seem mundane to them. So if you want to find beauty in Medieval art
> > you can either try to understand their values and divorce yourself
> > from your own to appreciate and enjoy what they are doing.
>
> I think I'm being mis-diagnosed.
>
OK. Reclarify your position. Am I just wrong in assuming that you
would like to find beauty in the art of the Middle Ages but simply
can't because it isn't there? Or you just aren't interested in
finding beauty in the Middle Ages because you've decided that it
doesn't exist? Or something completely different
.> > Still, you
> > might just not like it. It might just be a question of personal
> > taste.
>
> As I said, there is much to like. But I don't think I'll ever fall in love
> with those silly cartoons!
>
OK. YOU will never fall in love with what you define as silly
cartoons. But that doesn't mean that the "silly cartoons" weren't
appreciated in their own time for reasons that you don't comprehend or
that their creators lacked talent or abilities simply because their
manner of depiction isn't something you are interested in.
If you are interested in learning about Medieval art and WHY the
Medievals and many other people do consider it to be artistically
valuable, I could recommend some books. But that's up to you. ;-)
JMHO,
Eve
E. C. Lee
> I don't think it's so much that they draw badly, rather that they draw
> _differently_.
LOL! I think you summed up in one sentence what took me a whole
morning to write! ;-)
Eve
Drew Nicholson
I was rather thinking that myself, but your explanation was much better, and
I learned a great deal... :)
E. C. Lee
Well, as long as somebody learned something, it was worth it! ;-) Typos and all!
Eve
erilar
> Once again, sorry for rambling or typos, but I'm trying to write this
> while under the gun doing other things.
Magnificent analysis! Thank you! I even saved it , which I seldom do 8-)
Contrarius
> Once again, sorry for rambling or typos, but I'm trying to write this
> while under the gun doing other things.
> > > It's not a question of decline as much as a change in what's
As I said, "the art of accurately representing people and things."
Obviously, that doesn't include pattern books. And if you're talking about
complex patterns and such, Islamic work was vastly more intricate and
sophisticated.
> Are you confusing the ability to
> draw with the ability to draw convincingly realistic renderings of
> humans.
Yes. The ability to accurately represent the figure is the foundation of
drawing. Geometrical patternmaking may be beautiful, even thrilling, but it
is not drawing.
> Take the Romanesque period that you mentioned before. They weren't
> trying to make show the underlying skeletal structure or a muscularly
> perfect human being. Most of the time they were trying to do
> something called architectonic, which means they were trying to get
> the human figure to conform to an overriding pattern such as the
> architeture that it's attached to. Or in a book, to the letters
> depicted. The human figure BECOMES part of a pattern. It's a
> different goal here. And there are many instances where this sort of
> thing is done magnificently. Real master works by real masters.
Masterworks of design, perhaps. Drawing, no. Unlike their predecessors the
Romans and their Renaissance successors, they were incapable of drawing the
figure well. Nor could they draw horses, for that matter, so it wasn't just
a matter of trying to subordinate depraved humanity. They didn't merely
draw differently; they drew badly. Perhaps you can cite some exceptions,
but I know of no figurative work in the Middle Ages that can hold a candle
to The Dying Slave or to Rubens, Durer, Michelangelo, Raphael, Pontormo, et
al - technically OR expressively. (Even their expressive palette is
limited. It seems like the only strong emotion in Medieval art is
sanctimoniousness.)
Just look at their battle scenes. Stiff, repetitious; not a hint of
dynamics; rigid, de-humanized figures; artificial dimensionality;
cartoon-like depictions of severed heads and limbs. There's scarcely a hint
of the fear, exhilaration and pain that characterizes combat. Surely
medieval soldiers were not automatons, but they are certainly shown as
such. I find it remarkable how the artist could be so disconnected from the
subject! - and fail so completely to capture its essence. (The emotions
associated with battle haven't changed all that much over the last 1000
years.)
I realize your position (I hope I don't misstate it) is that Medieval
artists showed what was important to them; by viewing their work through
the lens of the 21st century, I'm failing to take into account cultural and
psychological differences.
Well, that's true to a degree. But while I do think they drew badly, I
don't think they were merely inept. As I said, I view the desire to
accurately render our world as a fundamental part of man's nature - as
exemplified by the cave paintings I mentioned earlier. I think a culture's
inability to transmit and demonstrate drawing skills - ESPECIALLY when they
have inherited plenty of examples of such work - is a deficit, not just a
difference. It's like not having music, speech or sex. I do realize there
are vast differences; I'm just not sure what it was about the Medievals
that kept them from learning to draw.
> There are also instances where figures are manipulated to create
> emotional effects.
Unlike the very adept Expressionists, the Meds didn't "abandon" figure
drawing . Nor did they use it for expressive purposes. They subordinated it
to badly proportioned castles, heraldry and religious imagery,
Contrarius
> Once again, sorry for rambling or typos, but I'm trying to write this
> while under the gun doing other things.
> > > It's not a question of decline as much as a change in what's
As I said, "the art of accurately representing people and things."
Obviously, that doesn't include pattern books. And if you're talking about
complex patterns and such, Islamic work was vastly more intricate and
sophisticated.
> Are you confusing the ability to
> draw with the ability to draw convincingly realistic renderings of
> humans.
Yes. The ability to accurately represent the figure is the foundation of
drawing. Geometrical patternmaking may be beautiful, even thrilling, but it
is not drawing.
> Take the Romanesque period that you mentioned before. They weren't
> trying to make show the underlying skeletal structure or a muscularly
> perfect human being. Most of the time they were trying to do
> something called architectonic, which means they were trying to get
> the human figure to conform to an overriding pattern such as the
> architeture that it's attached to. Or in a book, to the letters
> depicted. The human figure BECOMES part of a pattern. It's a
> different goal here. And there are many instances where this sort of
> thing is done magnificently. Real master works by real masters.
Masterworks of design, perhaps. Drawing, no. Unlike their predecessors the
> There are also instances where figures are manipulated to create
> emotional effects.
Unlike the very adept Expressionists, the Meds didn't "abandon" figure
drawing . Nor did they use it for expressive purposes. They subordinated it
to badly proportioned castles, heraldry and religious imagery,
> > I dunno. If the medieval world was totally under the spell of
Dick Wisan
>don't think they were merely inept. As I said, I view the desire to
>accurately render our world as a fundamental part of man's nature - as
>exemplified by the cave paintings I mentioned earlier. I think a culture's
>inability to transmit and demonstrate drawing skills - ESPECIALLY when they
>have inherited plenty of examples of such work - is a deficit, not just a
>difference. It's like not having music, speech or sex. I do realize there
>are vast differences; I'm just not sure what it was about the Medievals
>that kept them from learning to draw.
>
>> There are also instances where figures are manipulated to create
>> emotional effects.
>
>Unlike the very adept Expressionists, the Meds didn't "abandon" figure
>drawing . Nor did they use it for expressive purposes. They subordinated it
>to badly proportioned castles, heraldry and religious imagery,
I don't know whose side this comes down on, but I wonder if the distinction
between what people _can_ do in representing things is as distinct as you
two seem to think from what they _do_ do. I think Gombrich, for instance,
would say something like this:
Think how we learn to make representations. I remember how in the second
grade, I put a strip of blue at the top of the paper because that's where
the sky was, and a strip of green on the bottom for the grass, and every-
thing else in between them. To show the colors of things, I would outline
them in the proper color. One day, I finished a picture of a black truck
with a rectangular brown cargo box. As I stood contemplating it, the
teacher came over.
"Aren't you going to finish it?"
Confusion.
"Finish what?"
"Color it in."
Pause. I got it. Wow, things weren't colored around the edges;
they were colored _all_the_way_down_. So, I began to color it in.
The teacher went off, probably never knowing what she had just
taught me.
And so it goes, what counts as "how it looks" is something you learn
to show, and you do not notice what you aren't putting in. You can,
perhaps, see there's a difference between your picture and the
original (pictures are easy to distinguish from things), but it's
not clear that you can see what you left out, except things you have
learned not to leave out. Learning to draw isn't a manual skill of
drawing the lines right. You have to know what line to draw. Now,
I can't draw. I admire someone who can look out the window and
daw the twigs on the tree. If I do it, what I make doesn't look
much like the tree, but his picture does. I suppose, if I really
wanted to, I could study his picture carefully and figure out what
more I could put in but I'm lazy (the teacher was right about that,
though that wasn't what was going wrong with my black and brown
truck). But, what if nobody else drew things any differently, and
my teachers are quite satisfied with my colored outlines? I wouldn't
see that anything was missing. Possibly, if there were reason to do
it, I --or someone with a more powerful visual imagination than I--
might break through this or that convention --Giotto did that. But
he'd have to be dissatisfied, he'd have to want to get something
right he could see he hadn't.
Contrarius knows they weren't inept, but he is "just not sure what it
was about the Medievals that kept them from learning to draw." Does
this Gombrich-like argument explain why? The book I'm thinking of is
"Art and Illusion", (Pantheon Books, Bollingen Series XXXV-5, 2nd ed,
1961, no ISBN, Library of Congress Card Catalog No. 59-13517). It's
extraordinarily interesting even if you have reservations about it.
--
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.
E. C. Lee
<considerable snippage>
> > >
> > If you look at pattern books of the times you could see that there
> > were some incredible drawings. It's not drawing that the issue for
> > you perhaps, but drawings of people?
>
> As I said, "the art of accurately representing people and things."
Throughout this discussion you keep bouncing back and force as to what
you mean. You say that the Medievals can't draw and you equate
drawing as equaling the depiction of human beings. What's more, you
equate the drawing of human beings as the naturalistic illusionistic
depiction of human beings. And you assume that naturalistic
illusionism is "accurate". Idealism can be naturalistic and
illusionistic. But it's hardly "accurate". The portrait of Pericles
from ancient Greece is not "accurate".
1. Drawing is a technique. If you look in a dictionary it will say
something like "the sketching with line". At least that's what mine
says. I'm sure others say something similiar. You can draw people.
You can draw a wave. Or you can draw something completely imaginary
such as the fires of hell or the inner turmoil of one's soul. All you
have to do is sketch with line.
2. People and things are subjects. You can draw them. You can paint
them. You can construct them out of collage. You can put them
together out of little pieces of glass in a mosaic.
3. Anything you create in art has style. Styles can be catagorized.
Things can be naturalistic, idealized, stlyized, etc.
None of these terms means the other. They run on different courses.
Drawing does not mean the drawing of people or things. It can be, but
it doesn't have to be. Nor does drawing mean naturalistic drawing,
although it can be. Nor are drawings of people or things necessarily
naturalistic, although they can be.
As for "accurate" that's HIGHLY subjective. You can say with "close
observation of nature" which is basically naturalism. How can you say
that a Baroque ascension into Heaven is accurate?
If you're saying the Medievals were not naturalistic, I'd say, yeah,
in some periods of the Middle Ages, although not in all. And part of
this has to do with rises and falls of fashion, not ability.
> Obviously, that doesn't include pattern books. And if you're talking about
> complex patterns and such, Islamic work was vastly more intricate and
> sophisticated.
>
I don't think you understand what a pattern book is. It's not a book
of different examples of stripes or polka dots. It's what a craftsman
might either have to show potential patrons as to what sort of work
can be done, in say architecture, metalwork, etc. It can also be a
book of examples of faces or hands or whatever that may be circulated
among artists to give them examples of stock images.
I also don't think you know much about Medieval Pattern. You don't
think that something like the Lindissfarne Gospel is vastly intricate
and sophisticated? I'm not going to compare European Medieval art to
Islamic art with the idea of one being superior to the other. They
are both incredible. And Medieval art was actually influenced by
Islamic art during several stages of development. Why don't you take
a look at Owen Jone's book, "The Grammar of Ornament"? It gives
examples of both. Both are wonderful and at times intricate,
sophisticated and elaborate. I wouldn't call one vastly superior over
the other.
> > Are you confusing the ability to
> > draw with the ability to draw convincingly realistic renderings of
> > humans.
>
> Yes. The ability to accurately represent the figure is the foundation of
> drawing.
I think that's a completely subjective remark. According to who?
Joshua Reynolds? I used to work at a graphic design firm. A lot of
them were brilliant draughtsmen and very few of them were actually all
that great at drawing humans. Why in the world is drawing the figure
the foundation of drawing? In some schools they may orient it that
way, but it isn't. DRAWING IS ABOUT LINE! The figure is merely
subject matter. There are actually people in this world and in the
past who didn't care about the figure and even thought that there were
other things in this world worth that merit their attention. As in
Islamic art or Jewish art . In Northwest Coast Native American art
you have highly stylized figures and rarely are they even human.
Another who DID like to draw the human figure, like the Japanese,
prefered to make THEM highly stylized. I mentioned this before and
you just avoided it. I've given you numerous explainations and
examples and you didn't respond to any of them.
Geometrical patternmaking may be beautiful, even thrilling, but it
> is not drawing.
>
Drawing is about LINE. It is technique. If you are drawing a pattern
that IS drawing!
> > Take the Romanesque period that you mentioned before. They weren't
> > trying to make show the underlying skeletal structure or a muscularly
> > perfect human being. Most of the time they were trying to do
> > something called architectonic, which means they were trying to get
> > the human figure to conform to an overriding pattern such as the
> > architeture that it's attached to. Or in a book, to the letters
> > depicted. The human figure BECOMES part of a pattern. It's a
> > different goal here. And there are many instances where this sort of
> > thing is done magnificently. Real master works by real masters.
>
> Masterworks of design, perhaps. Drawing, no.
Why not? You don't think you draw in design? I've taken design
classes. Believe me, you draw PLENTY. Industrial design does a lot
of rendering. Graphic designers do so constantly before they print a
project. Well, now they use computers, but IMHO that can be art too
if done in a creative manner.
Unlike their predecessors the
> Romans and their Renaissance successors, they were incapable of drawing the
> figure well. Nor could they draw horses, for that matter, so it wasn't just
> a matter of trying to subordinate depraved humanity. They didn't merely
> draw differently; they drew badly. Perhaps you can cite some exceptions,
> but I know of no figurative work in the Middle Ages that can hold a candle
> to The Dying Slave or to Rubens, Durer, Michelangelo, Raphael, Pontormo, et
> al - technically OR expressively. (Even their expressive palette is
> limited. It seems like the only strong emotion in Medieval art is
> sanctimoniousness.)
>
Arrrrrgh! You're going on several false perceptions here which I
pointed out before and you keep ignoring. You say "couldn't draw the
figure well." I say the point isn't "couldn't" or but didn't care to
draw it in the manner to which you've become accustomed to. It was
never developed to that point because at point naturalistic
classically proportioned rendering wasn't an interest. That doesn't
mean the Medievals were bad artists, just artists interested in
different things. It doesn't mean they couldn't draw, it meant they
didn't draw the same way for the same intent. I'm hardly going to say
the Book of Kells is inferior to a drawing of Rubens. They are both
beautiful, they are both works of art, they both took great drawing
skills. They are both trying to do different things. I'm not going
to look at an apple and judge it on whether or not it tastes like an
orange!
Example at expressive art in the Middle Ages? Detail of the soul of
the rich man tormented by devils at Moissac on the west side of the
sotuh ortal's narthex. 1120 to 1135. Those nasty devils at the Abby
church of Saint Foy in the second quarter of the twelfth century.
"Gethesemane" fol 244 in the Gospel book of Otto III around 1000. St.
Luke the Evangelist in the Gospel Book of Ebo Ms. 1fol 90v Before
835.
> Just look at their battle scenes. Stiff, repetitious; not a hint
of
> dynamics; rigid, de-humanized figures; artificial dimensionality;
> cartoon-like depictions of severed heads and limbs. There's scarcely a hint
> of the fear, exhilaration and pain that characterizes combat. Surely
> medieval soldiers were not automatons, but they are certainly shown as
> such. I find it remarkable how the artist could be so disconnected from the
> subject! - and fail so completely to capture its essence. (The emotions
> associated with battle haven't changed all that much over the last 1000
> years.)
>
Did it ever occur to you that this wasn't what they were trying to do
with their art? Perhaps they were just doing a work as a form of
decoration. Or the exaggeration used meant something to them. Or
that they cared more about showing how elegant the armor was. Or they
had an asethetic that one shouldn't be shown in agony in battle
because it would infer they were unmanly warriors. As for emotions,
you are assuming that everyone's reactions to emotions are the same as
yours or how we interpret them today. This is not true. There are
books on how the Medievals interpreted fear, pain, fury and love in
different ways than we do. There were cases where great shows of
emotion were considered appropriate and others where they are not. If
you are interested I'll try to get the names of these books for you.
I just can't think of them off hand.
And you mention movement. There are numerous periods in art, like
during the Egyptian era, where movement is NOT the desire. Why should
movement automatically be considered a plus? It's an interest in the
Baroque, and that's great. I love Baroque movement. But I also love
the sense of timelessness in some of the other periods because they
lack an attempt at movement. It can give the effect of the eternal
rather than the particular, if done right. Or the movement at times
may not be in the figures, but in our eyes, very common in the 15th
century in the art, made by shifting the perspectives. Or made through
LINE to shift your vision or through COLOR to shift your vision. Tons
of interesting thing things going on there that you're missing because
you're trying to make them all look like Michelangelo or Rubens,
instead of what they actually are.
BTW, there IS a lot of movement in some periods during the Medieval
era. This is another major problem in discussing this with you. The
art of the Medieval era was not static. It was constanly changing and
doing different things. I find some periods of Medieval art very
emotional, like the Romanesque. And the Carolingian. Also, there are
some incredible expressions in some of the figures. Check out some of
the incredible visions of the damned in some of the last judgements.
Frightening!
> I realize your position (I hope I don't misstate it) is that Medieval
> artists showed what was important to them; by viewing their work through
> the lens of the 21st century, I'm failing to take into account cultural and
> psychological differences.
>
> Well, that's true to a degree. But while I do think they drew badly, I
> don't think they were merely inept.
Again, you've got to think about what you are saying with both the
word "draw" and "badly". Remember that "draw" just means the use of
line. They don't do that badly. In many cases they excel. In their
use of line. Which is what drawing is all about. It's not about
subject, it's not about style, it's about line.
As for "badly" that's a totally subjective term which you seem to
imply as the inability to portray things in the post Renaissance
manner to which you are accustomed to--one of naturalism and one
that's oriented towards the human figure. And, apparently one that
portrays emotion and psychology (although you are moving later and
later as you include those standards and even in post Renaissance that
criteria goes in and out of fashion. And there are times in the
Middle Ages, as I mentioned, which were highly emotional, especially
in Byzantine Medieval art.)
As I said, I view the desire to
> accurately render our world as a fundamental part of man's nature - as
> exemplified by the cave paintings I mentioned earlier.
Did you ever think that man evolves and changes and so does that
perception of the world? Even in the cave paintings they moved to
greater and greater stylization. And you aren't even considering the
purposes of those cave paintings! They had purposes, possibly
sympathetic magic. What they did worked for them at their time.
And if the desire to "accurately" render is the goal, how do you
explain the numerous cultures I previously mentioned that didn't do
this up to your specifications? Or the rejection of this in the 20th
century? They are showing what's important to them in their world.
Their perceptions of what they are doing is "accurate". It just isn't
your accumulated conception of what's accurate.
Can't you see that not everyone looks at things the same way you do?
You seem to base everything on a hard line of you know "art " is, what
you know what "drawing" is, you know what man's basic nature is, when
most of the time, I'm afraid you are really ill informed, using terms
incorrectly and without a deep understanding of the cultures you are
talking about. You are saying what is good and bad based on your
personal preferences, shutting down most of the cultures of this world
and a good hunk of time as well.
Again, I don't mean to seem nasty and severe, here, not am I trying to
get personal, but your views on art appear very closed minded. And
you have a very limited amount of knowledge on the subject. I really
recommend that you study art some more, particularly the periods that
you DON'T like, to get a better understanding of them before you
condemn them.
I think a culture's
> inability to transmit and demonstrate drawing skills - ESPECIALLY when they
> have inherited plenty of examples of such work - is a deficit, not just a
> difference.
Again, see earlier definition of what drawing means. And if the above
is true, we are currently in BIG trouble, because the majority of
artists today probably don't meet your criteria.
>It's like not having music, speech or sex.
Why not? I think there are many parallels. But keep you must keep
parallels as true parallels if you're going to make examples.
I do realize there
> are vast differences; I'm just not sure what it was about the Medievals
> that kept them from learning to draw.
>
Probably the fact that they WERE drawing certain thing in certain
ways, but not the way you like it.
However, a lot of people DO like and value their art, find or found
them enormously creative and talented. The PreRaphelites, for
example. The gothic revivial, for example. Many modern artists.
Medievalists. Many people on this list. It's a question of taste,
not artistic deficiencies. What kept them from learning to draw the
way you liked them to is because they 1. Weren't interested. 2. Were
busy drawing other things.
> > There are also instances where figures are manipulated to create
> > emotional effects.
>
> Unlike the very adept Expressionists, the Meds didn't "abandon" figure
> drawing .
Both were doing figure drawing. But both do it in a non-naturalistic
style. It's a cultural choice. The decorative use of line and the
subordination of the figure to the pattern in the early Middle Ages
had a tradition from the Northern tribes. And there was influence
from the non-naturalistic Islamic world. Even the Roman were picking
up on these influences and their art was changing. Likewise, there
was a certain amount of classicism in Byzantine art. It was a
reshuffling of interests and priorities and it continued to be
throughout the period.
BTW, the "adept" Expressionists decided that the skills they had
obtained in art school were not what they wanted to do. The Medievals
knew what they wanted to do already. Should they learn a ton of
skills unncessary to them from the get go? Geeez!
They subordinated it
> to badly proportioned castles, heraldry and religious imagery,
>
Arrrgh! Your idea of art. Not theirs! They just didn't have the
same idea as you do as to what is beautiful or meaningful or what to
approach in art. I can say it a thousand ways, but if you haven't got
it by now I don't think you ever will. Not everyone has the same
standards as you do. Doesn't make them inferior. If you judge them
by their own standards you might actually find you like it or that you
have a more expanded world view.
As for religious imagery, where the heck did that come in? Even
Michelangelo and Rubens did religious imagery. They just did
different things with it.
I really urge you to try to open your mind and read some books on the
art of the Middle Ages. At least try to understand what they were
doing and why there might be more than one way of seeing things than
the way you see it. That there are no RULES in art as to what's
appropriate subject matter, what's an appropriate style to show them
in, or what media or technique must be used. Any rules are solely
arbitrary and both time and culture bound.
Though I have the sneaking suspicion that the above suggestions will
go unheeded.
Sigh,
Eve
Martin Reboul
Contrarius wrote ...
>
> E. C. Lee wrote...
You haven't studied the subject have you? I have only done so as a sideline
to my interest in the Wars of the Roses, yet I have seen many examples of
superb medieval drawing.
> Just look at their battle scenes. Stiff, repetitious; not a hint of
> dynamics; rigid, de-humanized figures; artificial dimensionality;
> cartoon-like depictions of severed heads and limbs. There's scarcely a
hint
> of the fear, exhilaration and pain that characterizes combat. Surely
> medieval soldiers were not automatons, but they are certainly shown as
> such. I find it remarkable how the artist could be so disconnected from
the
> subject! - and fail so completely to capture its essence. (The emotions
> associated with battle haven't changed all that much over the last 1000
> years.)
Cast your coffee table books aside, and have a look at "The Pageant of
Richard Beachamp".... ? Simple ink line drawings... perfect. Have a look at
some simple sketched portraits, especially Burgundian examples... couldn't
draw? Please!
As for the 'emotions associatted with battle' not changing over the last 1m,
what soldier has not felt fear, disgust, fury, panic, bewilderment, guilt
and grim determination since the first soldier took up arms? Look at
something other than the Bayeux Tapestry, and you will find many examples.
Cheers
Martin