|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 18, 2011 20:32:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Feb 18, 2011 21:12:42 GMT -5
Medieval art: Why does that woman have a beard? </snark>
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 18, 2011 23:09:11 GMT -5
Art-wise, he's confusing the Renaissance for being part of the Middle Ages. Middle Ages art was composed almost entirely of shit. I beg to differ. There was a lot of beautiful art in the middle ages. Sure, it wasn't "realistic" in the same way art from the renaissance was, but that's not the only, or best, quality to judge art by. Also, the list in the OP may be full of BS, but I recommend Terry Jones' Medieval Lives. It dispels some of the myths about how awful life in the middle ages was, and how much better things were in the renaissance.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 19, 2011 5:25:53 GMT -5
Art-wise, he's confusing the Renaissance for being part of the Middle Ages. Middle Ages art was composed almost entirely of shit. I beg to differ. There was a lot of beautiful art in the middle ages. Sure, it wasn't "realistic" in the same way art from the renaissance was, but that's not the only, or best, quality to judge art by. The difference between Medieval and Renaissance art is that with Renaissance, it's based upon a fairly accurate depiction of the piece in question. So therefore, if you wanted Greek columns for your house, you despatched the artist to Greece to get an accurate impression of Greek columns. Medieval art is basically based upon "This is what my mate says it looks like". That isn't, however, to say it was bad: It still is a benchmark for later art and is also seen as the grassroots of all modern art. It wasn't that bad a period, incessant outbreaks of warfare and plague notwithstanding. My own reaction was because I find it irksome that there are still people who believe that there was some sort of mythical 'Golden Age' and that if we just get rid of all these 'modern' ideas, life would be just like that again.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Feb 19, 2011 6:18:47 GMT -5
To be fair I really prefer medieval art to ren.
With that said, that time period was horrible. Does everyone like Shane to be alive? Well Shane does too. She wouldn't be in those days.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 7:04:35 GMT -5
Medieval art: *snip* Renaissance art: *snip* I appreciate the technical mastery involved in Rennaisance art, but I, personally, believe that mediaeval illuminated manuscripts are some of the most beautiful artworks in the history of the planet. And although they are not photo realistic, I believe the skill and dedication to create some of them is at least equal to that of any of the Ren masters. Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry Maciejowski Bible, Mathew Paris Sadly, photoscanning is not yet to a standard where the true sumptuousness of these pieces is fully captured. The colours in the originals are stunning, and the gold leaf is simply dazzling. Sadly, when scanned or photographed the leaf work tends to come out as a mouldy green, and the deep richness of the colours is somewhat flattened. Even so, I hope you cn see that these are significantly well executed and aestheticly gorgeous pieces.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 7:07:05 GMT -5
Art-wise, he's confusing the Renaissance for being part of the Middle Ages. Middle Ages art was composed almost entirely of shit. I beg to differ. There was a lot of beautiful art in the middle ages. Sure, it wasn't "realistic" in the same way art from the renaissance was, but that's not the only, or best, quality to judge art by. Indeed. Realism and perspective were important innovations of the Rennaisance masters, however realism has not been the basis for atistic critique for some considerable time now. Consider your Pollocks, Johnses and Picassos, just for example. Seconded. Excelent book. Fun and easy to read too.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 7:14:52 GMT -5
For all you peaceniks out there, interesting fact about mediaeval warfare, it tended (there are, of course, exceptions) to be significantly less bloody than most periods before or since. Until the 20th Century, if you want an example of truly brutal butchery and the slaughter of millions, in terms of both combatants and civilians, you need to look at the Rennaisance, particularly the 30 Years War, or the Roman and Migration periods, where entire regions could be laid waste, and populations exterminated or banished.
|
|
|
Post by askold on Feb 19, 2011 7:18:26 GMT -5
First it seemed like none of the arguments in the OP:s list make any sense... Serfs doing nothing during winter? This man knows nothing of agriculture. No lobbyists? I'm sure the nobles and businessmen tried to lobby their causes as much as they could. Stability? Unchangin laws? Sure if you get a benevolent and competent king but you might not be that lucky. Then I began to think this as a right-winger/libertarian would. The few who were lucky to be born into money or noble bloodline did do fine, so this is no different from the usual Ayn Rand fantasies where the few lucky ones live perfect lives while others starve. "People who couldn’t work were taken care of by charitable nuns and monks – or by their own families if they had sufficient funds to do so." Thats a pretty big if. Amazing food? Yes. I'm in SCA and we do medieval cooking which is awesome AS LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS ARE CLEAN AND YOU ACTUALLY CAN AFFORD THEM! If you were a poor serf you ate whatever you could get in your hands. But I do admit that the feasts for the nobles were awesome. Strange that he did not put the clothes on the list. I mean those were awesome. Pimping!
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 19, 2011 7:24:23 GMT -5
First it seemed like none of the arguments in the OP:s list make any sense... Serfs doing nothing during winter? This man knows nothing of agriculture. No lobbyists? I'm sure the nobles and businessmen tried to lobby their causes as much as they could. Stability? Unchangin laws? Sure if you get a benevolent and competent king but you might not be that lucky. Then I began to think this as a right-winger/libertarian would. The few who were lucky to be born into money or noble bloodline did do fine, so this is no different from the usual Ayn Rand fantasies where the few lucky ones live perfect lives while others starve. "People who couldn’t work were taken care of by charitable nuns and monks – or by their own families if they had sufficient funds to do so." Thats a pretty big if. Amazing food? Yes. I'm in SCA and we do medieval cooking which is awesome AS LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS ARE CLEAN AND YOU ACTUALLY CAN AFFORD THEM! If you were a poor serf you ate whatever you could get in your hands. But I do admit that the feasts for the nobles were awesome. Strange that he did not put the clothes on the list. I mean those were awesome. Pimping! Yeah, um... by most definitions German Landsnechts are rennaisance, not mediaeval. Of course, being merely SCA and not a real re-enactor like those of us in metal weapons groups, your ignorance can be forgiven
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Feb 19, 2011 7:24:55 GMT -5
^everything askold said.
|
|
|
Post by askold on Feb 19, 2011 7:41:01 GMT -5
Yeah, um... by most definitions German Landsnechts are rennaisance, not mediaeval. Of course, being merely SCA and not a real re-enactor like those of us in metal weapons groups, your ignorance can be forgiven Sorry I'm new. Besides I just got the first cool picture I could think of, and the SCA period is 600-1600. My own kit is 13th centurish, but its still a it incomplete. ...Anyway... We do have metal weapons as well these days, and their use is increasing slowly. I only do fighting with rattan weapons, but thats just a fun sport.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 19, 2011 9:00:08 GMT -5
I appreciate the technical mastery involved in Rennaisance art, but I, personally, believe that mediaeval illuminated manuscripts are some of the most beautiful artworks in the history of the planet. And although they are not photo realistic, I believe the skill and dedication to create some of them is at least equal to that of any of the Ren masters. Yeah, I wasn't really trying to imply that one is necessarily better than the other in terms of overall merit, just highlighting the differences between the two art styles. As far as technique goes, however, Renaissance art is significantly more developed, which was quite important for a time era when cameras didn't exist. Aesthetic value is a completely different beast altogether. Art scratched into cave walls is utter shit in terms of technique, but it can still be pleasing to the eye. Conversely, a photo-realistic painting can be ugly as sin, no matter how close to perfect it is. It all depends on the viewer, of course. Frankly, the fact that art is so subjective and fickle favours the modern ages, given that a longer history = more available art = something for everyone. A person who hates medieval art living in the middle ages would be shit out of luck, but someone who loves it living in modern times still has access to it, while the haters have other things to look at. Modern day wins again.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 19, 2011 14:47:41 GMT -5
For all you peaceniks out there, interesting fact about mediaeval warfare, it tended (there are, of course, exceptions) to be significantly less bloody than most periods before or since. Until the 20th Century, if you want an example of truly brutal butchery and the slaughter of millions, in terms of both combatants and civilians, you need to look at the Rennaisance, particularly the 30 Years War, or the Roman and Migration periods, where entire regions could be laid waste, and populations exterminated or banished. But that also happened in the middle ages as well - look at the Anglo-Scottish wars or the Scottish Civil War, where whole aeas of both Scotland and England were denuded of pretty much everything (including people) and the fighting became very bitter. Also look at the chevauchee of the English forces in the 100 Years War - even by today's standards it's a pretty horrible thing to use on a civilian population.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 19, 2011 17:36:54 GMT -5
Yeah, um... by most definitions German Landsnechts are rennaisance, not mediaeval. Of course, being merely SCA and not a real re-enactor like those of us in metal weapons groups, your ignorance can be forgiven Sorry I'm new. Besides I just got the first cool picture I could think of, and the SCA period is 600-1600. My own kit is 13th centurish, but its still a it incomplete. ...Anyway... We do have metal weapons as well these days, and their use is increasing slowly. I only do fighting with rattan weapons, but thats just a fun sport. Indeed. I fence with a (steel) rapier. More experienced fencers get to use arming swords and longswords, and my kingdom is experimenting with steel-tipped spears.
|
|