The Renaissance Myth
Allan Griffith
on-topic!
I've been reading James Franklin's essay "The Renaissance Myth" -
http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html
He claims that "...as we will see, the "Renaissance" was a period when
thought declined significantly, bringing to an end a period of advance
in the late Middle Ages. "
He also sees the Renaissance as an irrational age, an age of
superstition.
Is this a view that most modern medievalists would accept?
Al
David J. Starr
Well, I read the essay. It comes across as a little shrill and
doctrinaire, but no more so than say a newspaper editorial. His
comments on the goodness of work done during the middle ages, and the
"renaissance of the 12th century" are generally accepted by
medievalists, who like to see the middle ages as a constructive and
progressive era, as opposed to a dark age wasteland in history between
the Roman Empire and modern times. However I've not read anyone else
who trashes the renaissance quite so vigorously.
The thesis of Professor Franklin's essay is one of those ideas that's
rather hard to support or defend with facts and examples; it's one those
"glass is half full/half empty" things. When and if I read up on the
period, I'll be looking for examples of excellence in human thought and
development, to either support or overthrow the "anti renaissance"
thesis. So in the sense that it stimulates thought, the essay is
useful.
David Starr
mb
> rather hard to support or defend with facts and examples; it's one those
> "glass is half full/half empty" things.
Reading it again, it's very clear to me that the whole thesis is based
on one single assumption, i.e. equating theology and religiosity with
thought. Pull that prop, and everything falls. To one who cannot
connect religion and thought, it's completely empty.
E. C. Lee
> Allan Griffith wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but at least it's
> > on-topic!
> >
> > I've been reading James Franklin's essay "The Renaissance Myth" -
> > http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html
> >
> > He claims that "...as we will see, the "Renaissance" was a period when
> > thought declined significantly, bringing to an end a period of advance
> > in the late Middle Ages. "
> >
> > He also sees the Renaissance as an irrational age, an age of
> > superstition.
> >
> > Is this a view that most modern medievalists would accept?
> >
> > Al
>
Idol" (no, were not talking about Martin here) believes that
Renaissance art was a decline from the Gothic in that the new attiudes
towards the image changed the religious potency of the object. It's a
differenct POV from the usual, of course, but he makes a good
argument.
JMHO,
Eve
A Tsar Is Born
The Dark Ages myth was tremendously overdone for decades; eventually
students of the era fought back. One way they have done this is to
trash the subsequent era -- and, truth to tell, the Renaissance myth
was also overworked for some time. But it was no more an age of
superstition than any other, and the spread of learning (due to a
fashion for studying the recently rediscovered Greek classics and the
invention of movable type) was genuine and tremendous.
Human beings have always been very bright and very stupid. No age
lacks both.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Wilkins
> Allan Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote...
On Jim, he is a modern day Aristotelian. He would therefore think that
the revival of neo-Platonism was a decided step backwards. In some ways
he is right - as fruitful as the neo-Platonic revival was (in
stimulating the birth of modern science), it was less clear than the
exact distinctions of Aristotle's logical writings.
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
Jazzman797
>http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html
>
>He claims that "...as we will see, the "Renaissance" was a period when
>thought declined significantly, bringing to an end a period of advance
>in the late Middle Ages. "
You'll observe that Dr. Franklin earned his degree in mathematics and not
history. I think I'd find more weight in an historian's thesis similar to
Franklin's simply because he/she has the credentials to show it......well,
hopefully.
Rowena
Allan Griffith
>However I've not read anyone else
>who trashes the renaissance quite so vigorously.
Of course a lot depends on period of time you're defining as the
Renaissance. I was taken to task on a mailing list I belong to for
suggesting that perspective in painting was a medieval invention. It
was pointed out to me that perspective was invented by a Renaissance
artist, Giotto. Given that Giotto was born in 1267, I found it a bit
difficult to see him as a Renaissance painter.
Al
David J. Starr
Allan Griffith wrote:
>
> Of course a lot depends on period of time you're defining as the
> Renaissance. I was taken to task on a mailing list I belong to for
> suggesting that perspective in painting was a medieval invention. It
> was pointed out to me that perspective was invented by a Renaissance
> artist, Giotto. Given that Giotto was born in 1267, I found it a bit
> difficult to see him as a Renaissance painter.
>
> Al
Franklin makes that very point about Giotto in his essay. I tend to
agree. I find it useful to stick with the SHM definition of medieval
(500-1500) which defines Giotto as solidly medieval rather than early
Renaissance. On the other hand, was I doing something on art history, I
could understand a desire to lump Giotto in with the rest of the
renaissance painters. Even to my untutored eye, Giotto paints in the
style called Renaissance rather than that called medieval. No matter he
was doing it in the 13th century instead of the 16th. Clearly a man
ahead of his time...
David Starr
Katherine Tredwell
Speaking as someone who is not a medievalist, modern or otherwise,
I shall go out on a limb and say "no." I can say with certainty that his
essay flops badly when it comes to Renaissance science; I shall leave
other areas to those more knowledgeable than I.
Oh, his initial complaints about the medieval flat-earth business are
on-target enough, and sadly still called for today. But to say that the
period between 1453 and 1564 (his suggestion for the dating of the
Renaissance) only features one significant intellectual contribution,
namely Copernicus, is bizarre. First of all, what about Vesalius?
When did his anatomy stop being a major scientific work? Second,
how many Copernicuses (Copernici?) were there in the Middle
Ages, or any culture in any age for that matter? If Franklin is going
to limit the Renaissance to a hundred-year period, two people whose
work contributes to the complete overthrow of their respective
disciplines is none too shabby.
Third, I had associated the Renaissance, at least in part, with the
attempt to revive Antiquity, not to produce scientific novelties.
Judged by those standards, science in the Renaissance did pretty
well for itself. Sure, a translation of Ptolemy's Almagest was made
available in the Middle Ages--but how important was it? There are
very few MSS, as I recall. By contrast, Regiomontanus' Epitome
was quite influential and well known. Read typical astronomy
textbooks from 1300 and 1564, and you will begin to see how
sophisticated the astronomy of each period was. It is not a
coincidence that Copernicus was a member of the first generation to
be trained with the Epitome.
Finally, I question Franklin's argument for the cutoff date of the
Renaissance. He argues that stretching it past 1564 is a desperate
attempt to include people who don't belong in order to give the
Renaissance credibility. But as he says himself, history has been
written mostly by those who understand art and literature. If the
folks who look at science see something different, perhaps it is
because they are seeing something that was overlooked, not merely
wishful thinking.
Yes, some aspects of intellectual thought died out during the
Renaissance. This is not the same as an overall decline, which
Franklin argues. Instead, intellectuals were slowly turning to other
things--not better, not worse, simply different.
Automatically dismissing astrology, alchemy, and so forth as
"irrational" and "superstition" is an act of pure Whiggism.
Hope this gets you thinking.
Katherine Tredwell
E. C. Lee
> agree. I find it useful to stick with the SHM definition of medieval
> (500-1500) which defines Giotto as solidly medieval rather than early
> Renaissance. On the other hand, was I doing something on art history, I
> could understand a desire to lump Giotto in with the rest of the
> renaissance painters. Even to my untutored eye, Giotto paints in the
> style called Renaissance rather than that called medieval. No matter he
> was doing it in the 13th century instead of the 16th. Clearly a man
> ahead of his time...
>
>
> David Starr
Well, Giotto was probably influenced by Cavallini. He would have been
familiar with Cavallini's work when he was in Rome. So Giotto, though
remarkable, did not come out of a vacuum.
Furthermore, you can see some of those things we associate with Giotto
and Renaissance painting occuring in Gothic sculpture. So he actually
was a man of his time, we are simply limited in our understanding of
what his time was! If one compares him to Duccio, for example, as is
often done, and says, this artist represents the progress of the
Renaissance and this one represents the outdated ideas of Middle Ages,
one would be misunderstanding Duccio, his art, and his influences, as
well as the diversity of the period.
IMHO, the Renaissance is just another phase of the Medieval period.
Some changes are gradual, some abrupt, but there are always
significant threads that come from the previous period.
JMHO,
Eve
Paul J Gans
I think this is a good point. The same thing, I think,
can be said about the changes from classical to medieval.
There was a lot of continuity across whatever year is
picked as an artificial divide.
--- Paul J. Gans
Allan Griffith
>IMHO, the Renaissance is just another phase of the Medieval period.
>Some changes are gradual, some abrupt, but there are always
>significant threads that come from the previous period.
Just recently I read Frances Yates's THE OCCULT PHILOSOPHY IN THE
ELIZABETHAN AGE. I was surprised at just how widespread and
influential irrational ideas like Cabbala and astrology were in the
sixtenth and early seventeenth centuries.
Al
Paul J Gans
The post-medieval period is as burdened with names as the
medieval. "Dark Ages" are about as good a characterization
of their times as "renaissance", "humanist", and "enlightenment"
are of the post-medieval.
Or, as is sometimes said, it took the renaissance of enlightened
humanism to burn so many at the stake.
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I had a similar problem in an art history course I took a couple years
ago. The Renaissance seemed to start in the middle of what I considered
high medieval in Germany. My _Kulturgeschichte Europas_ added to the
confusion by using different "periods". When the class finally got to
Germany, we were looking at what I'd always considered late medieval
art.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
<ga...@panix.com> wrote:
And, of course, geographical location to add to the confusion. That's
the trouble with neat labels: reality is too slippery for them to stick
to.
Al Griffith
<erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> I had a similar problem in an art history course I took a couple years
> ago. The Renaissance seemed to start in the middle of what I considered
> high medieval in Germany. My _Kulturgeschichte Europas_ added to the
> confusion by using different "periods". When the class finally got to
> Germany, we were looking at what I'd always considered late medieval
> art.
It's the "Hey, this painter is innovative and interesting, so he can't be a
medieval painter because everyone knows medieval art could never be innovative
or interesting" syndrome. Or if they admit that someone like Giotto was a
medieval painter, they say he wasn't a real medieval painter, he was a
Renaissance painter born out of his time.
Al
Uwe Müller
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:erilarloFRY-4459...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <9Kwv9.13870$jE1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Allan
> Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> snip >
> >
> I had a similar problem in an art history course I took a couple years
> ago. The Renaissance seemed to start in the middle of what I considered
> high medieval in Germany. My _Kulturgeschichte Europas_ added to the
> confusion by using different "periods". When the class finally got to
> Germany, we were looking at what I'd always considered late medieval
> art.
There are comparable problems with ceramics. Up to the sixties glazed
ceramics were considered a renaissance thing, so the odd piece occurring in
medieval context would be simply thrown away as a displaced piece.
Today medieval red glazed ceramics are established as such and well
documented, glazing on ceramics is no longer a renaissance invention.
Strands of tradition seem to reach back to late roman times.
Most medieval ceramics here in northern germany are grey or black in color,
so the pieces from a light yellowish clay with a clear inside glazing were
considered to be a renaissance thing.
Again excavations showed this ware to appear shortly after 1400 but without
becoming the most used ware (very popular) before the pm period. While the
earlier medieval greenish glazes imitated copper vessels, this colour shift
could point to the substitution of beaten copper by cast brass
The typical renaissance ceramics, beside the yellowish glazed ware, is
stoneware, the Middle Rhine manufacturers products have been found as far as
Africa and America. But again the earliest forerunner, proto stoneware, has
been shown to have existed before 1200, making it a medieval invention
(well, learned from the Chinese).
The transition between medieval and post-medieval in the field of ceramics
can be compared in:
John Hurst, David Neal & H.J.E. van Beuningen, Pottery produced and traded
in North West Europe 1350-1650. Rotterdam Papers IV, Rotterdam 1986
Have fun
Uwe Müller
E. C. Lee
Those who like to give labels had solved this problem by making a
division of Northern and Italian Renaisance, having the Northern
Renaissance come later. The "English" Renaisance is later still.
We're back to the "progress" in history issue. Someone like Vasari
will promote himself and his countrymen by saying something like "what
we did was new and improved and everything led up to me!" Vasari was
incredible PR for the Florentine artists. Just looking at Italy at
this time, most people are stuck in the arts of Florence rather than
looking at what went on in the rest of Italy, partly due to Vasari and
other Florentine writers. Not that important things DIDN'T happen
here. The money and social situation allowed a great deal of
significant works to be produced and artist did gravitate here. But
other things WERE going on elsewhere which were significant and these
things tend to get swept under the rug in surveys.
The idea of *progress* is selective. Art wasn't static up to that
point. There were new and innovative things going on all the time.
But the things that made them new and innovative just weren't valued
by later art historians. The art of the Middle Ages was always
changing and there are tons of sub-movement names desperately trying
to identify these changes.
Because the later chain of events made naturalism and classical
influences dominant in Western art, we look to the points that started
this move or at least the ones that *claim* to. Those things that
back up the nice clear thread are chosen as representative and things
that don't, are disgarded.
People make choices when they illustrate "progress" in art. It suits
their thesis but it does limit the complexity of how things operate in
life. Another good example in the history of art is that we look to
the French when we track the beginnings of modernism, whereas a good
case could equally be made by following the trends in the art of the
English or the Germans. And in another sense, it could also be made
for the Japanese or the arts of Africa.
JMHO,
Eve
Richard R. Hershberger
When I was an undergraduate my school's medievalist, C. Warren
Hollister, used to delight in annoying the school's Renaissance
historian, J. Sears McGee, by claiming that there was no such thing as
the Renaissance. Dr. McGee eventually retaliated by giving a lecture
asserting that there was no such thing as the Middle Ages. Sadly, Dr.
Hollister died in 1997, so I suppose that Dr. McGee got the final say.
Richard R. Hershberger
Dick Wisan
>> >
>> > I had a similar problem in an art history course I took a couple years
>> > ago. The Renaissance seemed to start in the middle of what I considered
>> > high medieval in Germany. My _Kulturgeschichte Europas_ added to the
>> > confusion by using different "periods". When the class finally got to
>> > Germany, we were looking at what I'd always considered late medieval
>> > art.
>>
>> It's the "Hey, this painter is innovative and interesting, so he can't be a
>
>...We're back to the "progress" in history issue. Someone like Vasari
>will promote himself and his countrymen by saying something like "what
>we did was new and improved and everything led up to me!" Vasari was
>
>...The idea of *progress* is selective. Art wasn't static up to that
>point. There were new and innovative things going on all the time.
>But the things that made them new and innovative just weren't valued
>by later art historians.
I expect you're right about why it actually did happen, but I think
there's no logical connection between the idea of progress and this
kind of over-periodizing and sniffiness about other periods. There's
reason to periodize when you find one kind of work being done at one
time and a different kind at an another time. You don't have to have
a preference for one kind to say that there are two different periods
characterized by the kinds of work. Naturally, it's likely that
the later kind is at least "prefigured" as elements of it begin to
be experimented with and there are bound to be good artists (like
J. S. Bach) who practice a style long after it "should have" dis-
appeared according to the periodization. Mere love of one's own
[or "the standard"] periodization would produce the same tendency
to ignore the transitions, and to find that the periods have
different dates as the style catches on later in some places than
in others.
>People make choices when they illustrate "progress" in art. It suits
>their thesis but it does limit the complexity of how things operate in
>life. Another good example in the history of art is that we look to
>the French when we track the beginnings of modernism, whereas a good
>case could equally be made by following the trends in the art of the
>English or the Germans...
Sure, but couldn't the same thing be possible if we were looking
gloomily at the decay of accurate detail and perfection of perspec-
tive? First in France and then later elsewhere, painters begin to
fuzz up everything. Problem: How could they so rapidly have lost
the technique of representation? Later artists actually began to
distort their subjects, apparently intentionally?
--
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
> E. C. Lee afro...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Al Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> >>
> >> erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I had a similar problem in an art history course I took a couple years
> >> > ago. The Renaissance seemed to start in the middle of what I considered
> >> > high medieval in Germany. My _Kulturgeschichte Europas_ added to the
> >> > confusion by using different "periods". When the class finally got to
> >> > Germany, we were looking at what I'd always considered late medieval
> >> > art.
> >>
> >> It's the "Hey, this painter is innovative and interesting, so he can't be a
> >> medieval...
> >
> >...We're back to the "progress" in history issue. Someone like Vasari
> >will promote himself and his countrymen by saying something like "what
> >we did was new and improved and everything led up to me!" Vasari was
> >incredible PR for the Florentine artists...
> >
> >...The idea of *progress* is selective. Art wasn't static up to that
> >point. There were new and innovative things going on all the time.
> >But the things that made them new and innovative just weren't valued
> >by later art historians.
>
> I expect you're right about why it actually did happen, but I think
> there's no logical connection between the idea of progress and this
> kind of over-periodizing and sniffiness about other periods.
I'm not so sure about that. It's been a while, but I recall a major
theme in the teaching of art history used to be based on the idea of
styles going through phases such as--
1. the beginnings 2. the advancement of the style 3. the pinnacle of
the style 4. the decay.
Things would progress and then they'd fall apart and you'd start all
over again. Each period would be named and would be judged as to
whether or not they were progress to the peak or a reaction against
it. I believe there's a classic book on this about the Renaissance,
though I can't seem to find it on my shelf right now. I also recall
being taught some similar ideas about Ancient Greek art. At that time
"Hellenism" and "Mannerism" were pretty much considered dirty words.
The idea was you are either progressing towards something, or turning
away from some sort of superior flow. The period names helped to show
where you were on this graph.
There's
> reason to periodize when you find one kind of work being done at one
> time and a different kind at an another time. You don't have to have
> a preference for one kind to say that there are two different periods
> characterized by the kinds of work.
You don't have to and now it's considered politically incorrect to do
so, but in the past that was very common.
Naturally, it's likely that
> the later kind is at least "prefigured" as elements of it begin to
> be experimented with and there are bound to be good artists (like
> J. S. Bach) who practice a style long after it "should have" dis-
> appeared according to the periodization. Mere love of one's own
> [or "the standard"] periodization would produce the same tendency
> to ignore the transitions, and to find that the periods have
> different dates as the style catches on later in some places than
> in others.
>
Yes. And technically one could show that some periods might not have
been able to do certain things that they eventually might figure out
how to do. Likewise, you might have changes, such as those of vase
painting in Ancient Greek, where the quality diminished in later
times, although in this case it was because the better artists began
doing other types (possibly more profitable) of paintings.
> >People make choices when they illustrate "progress" in art. It suits
> >their thesis but it does limit the complexity of how things operate in
> >life. Another good example in the history of art is that we look to
> >the French when we track the beginnings of modernism, whereas a good
> >case could equally be made by following the trends in the art of the
> >English or the Germans...
>
> Sure, but couldn't the same thing be possible if we were looking
> gloomily at the decay of accurate detail and perfection of perspec-
> tive? First in France and then later elsewhere, painters begin to
> fuzz up everything.
The fact is, what the French were doing WAS commongly looked at as
progress in many art history surveys, even though it was omitted the
fact simultaniously artists in England were reacting against the
"fuzziness" of 18th century paintings by artists like Reynolds, and
trying to reproduce accurate highly focused detail. If you follow
progess as being what the French did and how it led to Modern art you
could make a good case. But as I said, you could do the same with the
PreRaphelites, linking them to strains to surrealism, photorealism,
etc. You could also follow both strains and end up in the various
styles of photography and filmmaking. And let's not forget the highly
significant contributions of the Germans. And this is not even
considering the importance of non-Western art. Yet how many people
ARE taught that things are a progression from 19th century French art?
As for perspective, I've heard it said that we progressed away from
the need for a single view as seen in the use of perspective to
finding other means of depicting vision and space. Using not just the
eye, but the mind, the emotions, a more complex interpretation of
vision, etc. IMHO, they are all just different approachs, none
superior to the other, but it CAN be presented as a progress.
Problem: How could they so rapidly have lost
> the technique of representation?
I think the very fact that you are addressing this issue shows an idea
of progress. If you feel that things are leading up to
"representation" than you feel its loss. If you look at the ultimate
being art as expressing things beyond representation, that yout answer
is clear. If you see a wide variety of possiblities within art with
none being superior to the other, then there IS no question.
BTW, the techniques weren't lost. They were abandoned by some to do
other things. And if one looks, one can usually find artists who
still worked in those techniques. And representation can always be
found in book illustration.
Many artists interested in representation have also found a means of
naturalistic representation that required new techniques such as
through the art of photography or collage. I knew an artist who once
said, "why should I painstakingly render a picture of a pencil in my
work when I can just stick the real pencil into a painting?" She was
capable of doing the rendering, she just didn't find it necessary to
do it nor important to the meaning of her work.
JMHO,
Eve
Dick Wisan
>> ...There's
>> reason to periodize when you find one kind of work being done at one
>> time and a different kind at an another time. You don't have to have
>> a preference for one kind to say that there are two different periods
>> characterized by the kinds of work.
>
>You don't have to and now it's considered politically incorrect to do
>so, but in the past that was very common.
Indeed, but I'm talking only about logical connection between claims
or practices, not about what happened. (I always get into trouble
when I do this here. A history group is always obsessed with what
the facts were. As you can see, I'm no historian.)
>progress...
Of course. We were all taught that the Impressionists were the
heros, broke through the tyranny of the Academy, blazing a trail
for later heros like Cezanne and Picasso. My point is that you
could be just as periodistic while taking the view that Impres-
sionism is the beginning of decay. The story of 20th Century art
is a process of going to hell in a handbasket, with heroic excep-
tions like Norman Rockwell. [Please, This is not my view. It's
just the standard "progress" of modern art with the values reversed.]
>As for perspective, I've heard it said that we progressed away from
>the need for a single view as seen in the use of perspective to
>finding other means of depicting vision and space. Using not just the
>eye, but the mind, the emotions, a more complex interpretation of
>vision, etc. IMHO, they are all just different approachs, none
>superior to the other, but it CAN be presented as a progress.
Indeed, they usually are treated as progress. I agree it's healthier
to think of different periods as simply different, doing and expressing
different things, and try to characterize them and explain them.
>
> Problem: How could they so rapidly have lost
>> the technique of representation?
>
>I think the very fact that you are addressing this issue shows an idea
>of progress.
I'm not addressing any issue at all. I'm speaking in inverted commas,
following our the line I'm imagining, but not taking, myself. No, I
don't think Impressionism was a decay from accurate detailed perspec-
tival representation.
>
>BTW, the techniques weren't lost.
Of course not, but if you were following the line I suggested, you
would have to wonder how it could happen that artists were getting
worse and worse. 'They must have forgotten how to do the old, good
stuff.' [Inverted commas supplied for clarity.] As Anatole France
put it, in the middle ages, "ils ne savait ni peindre ni designer",
[warning: quoted from memory --spelling may be imperfect] ...but
remember, he was talking about penguins.
D. Spencer Hines
practices, not about what happened. (I always get into trouble when I
do this here. A history group is always obsessed with what the facts
were. As you can see, I'm no historian.)"
Wisan The Witless
Quite Right!
Wisan is yet another pogue who doesn't really think the *historical
facts* are all that important ---- even in a History newsgroup. He
spins webs of fantasy ---- not unlike a "theoretical chemist" we all
know.
Why?....
Why, because Wisan The Witless is a professor of PHILOSOPHY at a small,
bucolic, Upstate-New York college and doesn't know beans about
HISTORY.... Vide supra.
"I'm not addressing any issue at all. I'm speaking in inverted commas,
following our [sic] the line I'm imagining, but not taking, myself. No,
I don't think Impressionism was a decay from accurate detailed
perspec-tival [sic] representation."
Wisan The Witless
"I'm speaking in inverted commas..."
Hilarious!
Wisan The Flake....
Wake Up America....this is the sort of flake who is teaching your
children how to THINK.
Fear And Trembling....
No wonder Johnny and Jenny can't ratiocinate...or write clearly...or
speak clearly.
Deus Vult.
Dies Irae.
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt --- Motto of the Royal Artillery
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.
Dick Wisan
>
>
>"Indeed, but I'm talking only about logical connection between claims or
>practices, not about what happened. (I always get into trouble when I
>do this here. A history group is always obsessed with what the facts
>were. As you can see, I'm no historian.)"
>
>Wisan The Witless
>
>Quite Right!
>
>Wisan is yet another pogue who doesn't really think the *historical
>facts* are all that important ---- even in a History newsgroup. He
>spins webs of fantasy ---- not unlike a "theoretical chemist" we all
>know.
>
>Why?....
>
>Why, because Wisan The Witless is a professor of PHILOSOPHY at a small,
>bucolic, Upstate-New York college and doesn't know beans about
>HISTORY....
And you aren't. Jealousy is not good for you, Commodore. Try to
look on happier things.
Michael Farthing
<wis...@catskill.net> writes
<But someone else (E c Lee?) said this next first line. I've snipped
the attribution by mistake. Sorry>
>>BTW, the techniques weren't lost.
>
>Of course not, but if you were following the line I suggested, you
>would have to wonder how it could happen that artists were getting
>worse and worse. 'They must have forgotten how to do the old, good
>stuff.' [Inverted commas supplied for clarity.] As Anatole France
>put it, in the middle ages, "ils ne savait ni peindre ni designer",
>[warning: quoted from memory --spelling may be imperfect] ...but
>remember, he was talking about penguins.
>
>
But the 'progress' and 'deterioration' lines are not on a par with each
other. The Progress line recognises both the old and the new techniques
and realises that the 'old' is not lost but set-aside, or only partially
used, and that the new is adding something. In short, it sees the
different qualities of both before and afterwards. The 'deterioration'
viewpoint is unable to see what the newer forms offer and can only
explain it as a loss of quality. One encounters a similar problem when
talking to anti-relativity people in Physics. The mainstream physicist
does not belittle or set aside the achievement of Newtonian physics, nor
refuse to continue using it in many situations, but recognises Einstein
as a refinement and improvement. The anti-relativity argument, however,
comes from those who are unable to properly comprehend the motivation
for the refinement, nor make the intellectual leap to accepting an idea
that works but which is counter-intuitive. The argument against is not
(generally) from a position of understanding.
I say this as someone who is of the 'deterioration' persuasion in modern
art. [Modern Art starts about 1972 - though by January I might have
come to appreciate 1973].
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> 1. the beginnings 2. the advancement of the style 3. the pinnacle of
> the style 4. the decay.
This tends to work better for architecture than painting.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
E. C. Lee
> In article <f0cfed5b.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote:
>
> > 1. the beginnings 2. the advancement of the style 3. the pinnacle of
> > the style 4. the decay.
>
> This tends to work better for architecture than painting.
>
a "period" style that you can find in all the arts and they can then
be grouped together and analyzed in this manner. Art historians took
great delight in doing this for a while.
Eve
E. C. Lee
> >> >their thesis but it does limit the complexity of how things operate in
> >> >life. Another good example in the history of art is that we look to
> >> >the French when we track the beginnings of modernism, whereas a good
> >> >case could equally be made by following the trends in the art of the
> >> >English or the Germans...
> >>
> >> Sure, but couldn't the same thing be possible if we were looking
> >> gloomily at the decay of accurate detail and perfection of perspec-
> >> tive? First in France and then later elsewhere, painters begin to
> >> fuzz up everything.
> >
> >The fact is, what the French were doing WAS commongly looked at as
> >progress...
>
> Of course. We were all taught that the Impressionists were the
> heros, broke through the tyranny of the Academy, blazing a trail
> for later heros like Cezanne and Picasso. My point is that you
> could be just as periodistic while taking the view that Impres-
> sionism is the beginning of decay.
True. And we agree. You can take all sorts of data about history and
by emphasizing this or that, excluding that and this, and generally
overlaying everything with interpretation. This can give you all
sorts of theories, even ones that contradict each other!
The story of 20th Century art
> is a process of going to hell in a handbasket, with heroic excep-
> tions like Norman Rockwell. [Please, This is not my view. It's
> just the standard "progress" of modern art with the values reversed.]
>
You're making a joke, but I actually think there's some truth to this!
I think we could make a good case that much of Modernism led painting
into a blind alley. One could say that in our society, painting has
become a trivial art form. I think that representation, narrative
and meaning, elements that some of the modern movements discarded, can
be very attractive aspects in art. IMHO much of Modern art became so
esoteric that you need to be an initiate to understand it.
Of course, painting also lost it's importance due to a switch of
preference in media (photography and motion pictures). Could this be
because the new materials did a better job of things *like*
representation? Despite all the efforts of Modernism, is our
civilization still tied to the recognizable image? Not that this is
bad, just that we aren't as "progressive" in some ways as we think.
BTW, the art of the Academy and Victorian art can easily be linked to
motion pictures. Ideas from paintings by Long and Martin clearly can
be seen in the work of the incredibly influencial film director D.W.
Griffith (he was also influenced by the epic images of the Italians).
One can also trace German Expressionist art in the ever important
Hollywood film industry through those German filmmakers who eventually
fled to the States. They defined the look of the "horror" film, and
eventually the "film noir". Some of them also brought back romantic
styles, such as the sort of "neo Baroque" that you see in Lubitsch.
Things like Impressionism didn't translate well to the screen (except
as a novelty in the film "An American in Paris") despite the fact that
it was very popular to set films in France. The modernism that DID
make an impact came not so much from painting, but from design. And
IMHO, that design could better be traced to Charles Rennie MacIntosh
and the Bauhaus than to the French. You could compare some of this
style to artists like Leger, but I suspect you'd find it's stronger
influence was through design.
How does that sound? ;-)
BTW, I actually like Norman Rockwell ;-), but he's more tied to the
history of illustration. In his hey day, he was wonderful at
capturing the iconography of the period and his compositions are
wonderful. You might want to instead include "Photorealism" in
your thesis! ;-)
Of course, if you follow my line of reasoning, the art of natural
depiction was never lost, it just followed a different path out of
painting and into the art of film and photography! ;-)
JMHO,
Eve
erilar
> There's
> a "period" style that you can find in all the arts and they can then
> be grouped together and analyzed in this manner. Art historians took
> great delight in doing this for a while.
It has, however, distinct drawbacks as well, particularly when it's made
too widespread. When did the Renaissance begin in Italy? In Germany? In
the Low Countries? In England?......
E. C. Lee
> In article <f0cfed5b.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote:
>
> > There's
> > a "period" style that you can find in all the arts and they can then
> > be grouped together and analyzed in this manner. Art historians took
> > great delight in doing this for a while.
>
> It has, however, distinct drawbacks as well, particularly when it's made
> too widespread. When did the Renaissance begin in Italy? In Germany? In
> the Low Countries? In England?......
Exactly! Which brings us back to the original argument! ;-)
Eve
erilar
> I think that representation, narrative
> and meaning, elements that some of the modern movements discarded, can
> be very attractive aspects in art. IMHO much of Modern art became so
> esoteric that you need to be an initiate to understand it.
And if not, it can be funny. My daughter dragged me into a modern art
show once--after telling me not to laugh out loud(she knows me), so I
didn't. Later she also told me to stop making faces. She picks on me
sometimes. 8-)