Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey Lacey,
I think you’re right that the attendees of church had an uplifting experience and that is definitely due to light. At the time I think light was treated similar to how the body and blood of Christ are during the communion – that they actually believed the light was the presence of God (we know that symbolically the wine and bread are the body and blood, but some believe that they were truly transformed during communion). The presence of light is in a similar vein. The stained glass being beautiful is definitely an upside and after the incorporation of it do we start to see the implementation of holy symbols and people into it.
Hey Lacey,
I think you’re right – it was definitely a competition of divinity and the riches that required it were just another set bar to become one with that divine level. However, while also just being a facet of their status, I think the rich thought these things helped show their dedication to God – the more worldly goods they spent on their devotion meant the further they would get in the afterlife; the less they cared about worldly possessions the more they would get in the afterlife (or something to that extent). So yes, I think it is definitely a divine competition even though it is not outright stated or proven.
The churches becoming more and more ornate was a very obvious phenomenon that overshadowed the creation of devotional objects and spaces for those who could afford them. Stained glass became extremely prominent as seen in Sainte-Chapelle of Paris and flying buttresses came coupled with those (as the walls needed extra support that stained glass could not provide). The buttresses, while being beautiful, allowed for the amount of light that came in to remain constant while also providing needed support for the building.
The devotional objects, especially the moralized bibles, were completely separate of the church, as people that owned these objects had no reason for attending a church. Churches were most likely filled with pilgrims and devotees and people that could afford the moralized bibles were far from that.
The beautiful churches and moralized bibles coexisted during this time because neither of them knew they existed – they never came in contact with one another during their time period because those that attended them never experienced the other (if that makes sense… hope it does).The mass presentation of light in churches was meant as a symbolic presence of God. The more light in the church, the of God that was there and the more presence the church might feel. Although the trend has somewhat died out today (we don’t see entire walls of stained glass coupled with flying buttresses on the outside), stained glass is still present in churches throughout the world, allowing streams of light to come in. The light in today’s churches is still symbolic though it is not outright stated by the church (I think ‘light’ is always associated with a higher power or God) and the stained glass windows depict those images from the bible that are important, and also display holy figures (such as saints and the Virgin Mary). The light in the past was surely meant to impact the chamber and still does to some extent today.
Laura,
I agree that the Bayeux Tapestry is an excellent example of ‘bibles for the illiterate’ in this time period; in fact, I used it as an example in my post as well. I think it is safe to say that arts, such as the Tapestry, were created specifically for pilgrims and the illiterate alike so that they could be read, observed, and learn from while on the move. Without them, many of the pilgrims of the time might have gone without the equal understanding of other believers of the time.
rdnelson,
It’s interesting to look at the layout of churches as the accommodating factor for pilgrims and pilgrimages. A lot changed in this time period and something as simple as the layout of a church helped affect those pilgrimages too – it is weird to think about. Although it is hard to tell if the designs were actually effective… I think it is safe to say that they were due to the many churches that used the same design and assume that pilgrims followed the assumed flow inside the church.
Churches not only serve low levels of society but also high and everywhere in between. The Fontenay Abbey is an example of this, allowing lay men to join the order (unique to all Cistercian abbeys at the time). Bernard of Clairvaux felt that decorations would detract monks from their heavenly ruminations and the lack of them made the church more acceptable and approachable (the decorations and crossing tower were seen as “ostentatious and excessive”).
Additionally, tapestries were a big part of accessibility during the this era, the Bayeux Tapestry being a perfect example of this. Khan academy states that “The Bayeux Tapestry consists of seventy-five scenes with Latin inscriptions depicting the events leading up to the Norman conquest and culminating in the Battle of Hastings in 1066.” The tapestry is 230 feet long, but without the ability to read Latin most observers could most likely tell what story was being told.
Church design accommodated pilgrims by placing churches in remote places “away from any sort of hubbub.” A perfect example of this is the Fontenay Abbey, which was originally located “on a site of old hermitage.” Additionally, the Cistercian abbeys like the Fontenay Abbey had dormitories for sleep amongst many other things that travelling groups might make use of. These amenities along with their locations was what made them so valuable and accommodating for travelers such as pilgrims.
Hey Bob,
I couldn’t agree with you more. The fact that there is a little bit of everything, especially seen in the Book of Kells as you pointed out, are prime examples of the influence of Byzantine art. It is almost like a mixing pot of many of the other time periods.
Hey Valene,
I agree with both your points on Stave Churches and Rune Stones – I think the Rune Stones played a big part in this era claiming the misnomer of ‘Dark Ages.’ The Rune Stones are not only beautiful but also somewhat scary – the depiction of the Christ-shape being wrapped by ropes/snakes really gives a creepy feeling to this time period despite the underlying beauty. The fact that their gods were also displayed in less-than-ideal images (Odin hanging from a tree, hurt by a spear) can attest to this as well.
We see representations of the Byzantine era and Classical era throughout the Early Medieval art period. Evidence of the Byzantine era largely shines through with all the religious aspects of the Medieval era’s art, whereas the classical is harder to find. Classical is harder to relate due to the belief being polytheistic religion at the time and most of their art revolving around those gods. However, inspiration can be seen in carvings and some art pieces that are present in the Medieval period. The Grave Stele featured in the High Classical period is one such rock carving that depicts profiles of people similar to that of The Book of Durrow. The profiles are also seen in ceramic paintings of muses, such as on the White-Ground Ceramic Painting from the early classical period. Some animals are also present in art throughout the classical period but their meanings are lesser and often pertain to gods that they represent or are symbols for.
To me, it seemed like the ‘Dark Ages’ were the best time to be part of the Christian religion. The time itself may have not been the best, but a lot of the art of the time revolved around it. That being said, I really like the art that came about in this time period. The use of insula throughout many of the pieces, such as the illuminated manuscripts and even the Rune Stones at Jelling is unique and really intriguing. Even though a lot of the technique in the art is a mixing of previous eras, it displays how closely knit the world was and how widespread the religion itself was despite missing many of today’s communication tools.
Hey elkingkade,
I completely forgot about the ‘imperial purple’ robes that Emperor Justinian donned in his depiction. The robe Christ is wearing is also the ‘imperial purple’ that you pointed out, which, as the description details, ‘harkens back to the Roman Emperors.’ I think it is also important to note that Christ wears the same garb as Emperor Justinian which puts them on similar levels – not necessarily saying they are of the same significance but that they have the same power.
Hey Maggie,
It’s super interesting that you brought up the fact the icons were thought to defend themselves and bleed when attacked – that adds a whole separate level of complication. I think it is definitely evidence of the amount of significance they paid to the created icons rather than God himself and that they maybe spent more time believing in the created images than their deity. The fact that the people went through the struggle of giving the arts human characteristics is even more evidence how much they cared about worldly creations and false idols.
The art of the Byzantine Empire seemed to devolve (but not in a bad way, only in an aging way). The style is similar to that of the Egyptians in that there are 2D static characters rather than realistic and 3D ones. There is a decline in statues too, so we see much less posing – such as the contrapasso. Most of the art is present in murals or in architecture or a mixture of both. There are no depictions of polytheism (like in Jewish and Christian art) but I think they are inspired by older periods to have a variety of people represented in the art, hence the use of Saints, Mary, and The Son.
