Sunday, January 25, 2009

Paradigms and Purposes

Freeland's chapter 2: "Paradigms and Purposes" offers quite a sweep of ideas about art. Choose one perspective/idea/element from that chapter that in particular stands out to you and discuss it.

On page 38, Freeland writes that “The medievals followed three key principles for beautiful creations like cathedrals: proportion, light, and allegory.” I understand the emergence of new artistic forms, however in such a religiously influenced time, why was nature excluded from the “key principles”, especially since the natural world and God were closely linked throughout the bible. Cathedrals seem to have absolutely no sign of nature within them.

God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God led the Jews out of Egypt in the form of a cloud in the dessert. The three wise men followed a star to find Jesus in a manger. The supernatural world is linked to humans through nature. Before the fall of man, there was no need for this intermediate, but afterwards, man cannot look at God without suffering consequences. Saul, a biblical man in the Old Testament, caught a glimpse of God and was temporarily blinded. Even then, what he saw was an amazing light. The medievals correctly interpreted the significance of light and its relationship to God; however the gothic style cathedrals failed to incorporate nature.

Maybe it is because having something organic in a cathedral has the risk of dying, but people die too. Besides, the fear of death isn’t physical death, but spiritual death. Maybe it is because in heaven, nothing is organic, just the constant presence of the “light”. Can someone explain?

Chartres is an impressive display of the gothic style, but I wonder if this form of art expressed as a cathedral is another misinterpretation of the bible by the Catholic Church. I think it is the result of overzealous leaders. It reminds me of The Crusades, where the action was never justified or indicated by the bible, but misinterpretation of the bible sparked a “holy” war.

1 comment:

  1. Interesting perspective on the last article Mark. I like how you proposed the question of interpretation.

    ReplyDelete