Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Private devotion was definitely something for the higher classes. These cost a considerable amount of money alone, not counting any personal religious relics that may have been owned. This was possibly so that the higher ranking classes had a better and more personal relationship with the Divine, therefore ensuring their place in Heaven. Meanwhile, the lower ranking classes had little choice but to practice their devotions in a more public, impersonal setting, however, this relationship was probably more of a comforting one than those of the higher ranking classes due to the idea that they were not worshipping out of self-preservation.
The stained glass windows changed a lot about churches at this time. Not only did it alleviate the need for so many candles and lamps, but it also created a sense of awe for those entering the church. As well, an abundance of light was akin to a divine presence, so letting in the light also could mean letting in the Divine. Also, as architecture had evolved to be able to build these massive buildings, the heavy use of stained glass helped to highlight the size of these churches, to further the sense of awe in ‘God’s work.’ (As it is a common belief that all great things are God’s work.) The size of these buildings may have also had the effect of making attendees feel small in the grand scheme of things, in comparison to such massive and untouchable things as the Church and God.
The effect the pilgrimages had on the construction and designs of the churches was for several reasons. First of all, they were built in order to easily display holy objects. As well, the windows were on display as well, since most of them were stained glass depictions of the Bible. They were built with size in mind, as there would need to be room for the regular churchgoers, as well as the pilgrims. This massive size of some of the churches also enforces the presence of a holy being, which would reinforce the site’s position as an important site.
In a time when books of any kind were quite expensive, the use of imagery to tell the story of the Bible and its meanings was a sensible way to bring the sacredness to the illiterate masses. This served the lower classes by helping them to understand the Bible, while the higher classes could understand as well, leveling the field between classes instead allowing the division to be between the damned and those allowed into heaven. All men were to be equal in the eyes of God (supposedly), so it mattered more the dedication to the church and one’s own soul than to what economic lass one belonged to.
I feel that the Byzantine influence is definitely more obvious than a Classical one. The Book of Durrow and the Coronation Gospels both favor the religious influence of the Byzantine area. This is when Christianity is firming up its grasp on The British Isles, pushing out the Pagan religion of the Celts and Scots (for the most part), so it makes sense that Medieval art would heavily favor Byzantine art as much as it does. In fact, I see very little influence of Classical art in this period. Most of the art is religious in nature, with little art representing a living person. Instead, Medieval art is more focused on religious meanings and consuming all means into a religious context, of some sort.
I never have cared for the term, “The Dark Ages” for the Medieval period. While it does make sense when speaking of aesthetics, given the earlier periods, it is usually meant with the idea of a lack of innovation. In my opinion overall, this is when the ancient world starts to turn towards modernity. How this can be considered lacking in innovation, I do not understand. When talking purely on the topic of art, I can see it in some ways. After some of the almost living art of the previous periods, some of these pieces do seem to lack color and vibrancy. However, even with this shift, there are still some things that would still defy the idea of the Dark ages. The Book of Kells is truly amazing, as is so much of the metalworking of this period. The Celtic Knotwork, both in items such as the Book of Kells, or in any other representation of art, is intriguing and captivating, as an art as well as a mode of storytelling. So, I still feel that the term “The Dark Ages” is misplaced and unwarranted.
Given my beliefs on organized religion, this may sound a bit crass but it’s not meant that way. I feel that the reason that Byzantine art seems to devolve is that in earlier periods, art was used to depict life. It needed a sense of realism to make it believable and relatable. The Gods were shown in to be more human-like to help people believe in their existence and their importance in daily life. Byzantine art, however, moved away from realism as the Bible became more important as a religious text. To show images described in the Bible in a realistic manner would devalue their importance in a spiritual and religious context. The young and budding Christianity needed the images to feel surreal and above the average human being. This was needed to elevate the Bible’s importance as well as this new religion. Another aspect of this is that the early believers needed to set Christianity apart from the earlier periods, with their Pagan Gods.
I feel like that Byzantine art tries to circumnavigate the graven image issue by only depicting images pulled from descriptions in the Bible. As well, the use of Icons was a way to not violate the Second Commandment, as an Icon was seen as a holy object, not a reproduction of a person or being, which would make it a false idol of sorts. Instead, these images were a way to draw people closer to their faith, and the church at the same time. This would explain why there are so many icons of the Virgin Mary from this period, as the idea of Mary would draw people into the faith.
I hope this all makes sense. This is a tough subject for me, as I seldom get and understand religious imagery, either in art or in literature.
While the earlier cultures we have looked at have had direct representations of their deities, in Early Christian Art we see more symbolism, such as the fish representing Christ in the Catacomb of Priscilla. As well, most of the art we see here is almost documentation, such as the Madonna and Child, which does not enshrine a figure to be a false god. This makes the art more of an act of worship and makes the space sacred instead of it idolizing a figure. I think this is one reason we do not see a physical representation of God, as that would make it easy to model that representation after a person and creating a false idol.
I feel that there are several ways that we see syncretism in this weeks art. For example, in the catacomb of Priscilla, we have a representation of Christ in a contrapposto pose that is almost identical to ones we see in Roman art. The Oratory of Galla Placidia shows a figure of Saint Lawrence, asserting his citizenship in Rome with his toga and sandals, mixing Rome and Christianity, possibly showing this was an important fact. As well, the Synagogue of Dura-Europos and the Beit-Alpha Synagogue show a similar style of storing telling by way of art as the Romans employed, on the walls of these scared places.
For my final art project, I choose the Mask of Warka. I found this piece captivating when we studied it earlier, so I thought this would be an interesting piece to replicate. As I am not the most artistic person, I thought clay would be interesting and a bit forgiving, however as I am on a budget for this I attempted to create my version in Play-Doh. Yay for having kiddos!!!
I feel like a lot of Roman art could be considered propaganda art. Pont Du Gard, the road system, Hadrian’s Wall, all could be considered propaganda, as it spoke of how great and undefeatable the Roman empire was. The numerous portraits sculptures toated of age and wisdom, of experience. The Orator sculpture could silence someone with just a hand. Even the buildings spoke of the greatness of the Romans, given not only the architecture but their sometimes massive size and attention to details. All of this spoke of the importance of the Roman empire to the rest of the world, as well as to the Roman people. It tried to present this image that the Romans were the most powerful and deserved to rule anywhere they so desired. This not only maintained the power over the people, but it was also a message to the rest of the world that they dare not defy the Great Roman Empire.
Architecture is the first thing that comes to mind when I think about the influence of Roman on modern day culture. For instance, the Temple of Portunus and the Alaska State Building share several common features. Four tall columns, with stairs leading you in, making you look up to anyone that may be on the highest level. While the State Building isn’t in Ionic style, it still gives this feeling of age, wisdom, and a bit of intimidation. Roman architecture tends to have this feeling of opulence, of this grandness that we tend to copy in a majority of governmental buildings. Another place I see that we bring a bit of the Roman culture into modern life is in sports. The gladiator fights were brutal and highly popular. Today, we tend to try to have the same feeling, without the brutality that was popular then. Football is violent and can be brutal, hockey is brutal as well, and with both, most fans love a good hit or fight. In other words, not that much different than the days of the Coliseum, just a tad less bloody.
ckosis, I like your points about both the “Sarcophagus of Larth Tetnies and Thanchvil Tarnai’ and “The Cerveteri Sarcophagus” and their presentation of women on a more equal footing as well as see affection between a married couple. It was refreshing to see this after seeing such separation between the sexes in earlier art.
