On thing which is notable to me is that despite being painted tens of thousands of years ago the quality of the pictures in very good. In face the depictions of some animals seem far more realistic than those of medieval artists who were thousands of years more technologically advanced.
Compare cavemen depiction of horses:
13 comments:
"Now look at the horses in the Bayeux Tapestry:"
That's an interesting observation. I've often wondered why the medieval stuff is so crap but never thought to compare it with those cave paintings.
Hey, waita minute!
One is a drawing/painting. The other is an embroidery.
http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/interactive/BayeuxCreate.htm
enjoy!
Tim- does the fact it's a tapestry make that much difference?
Tend to agree with Tim.
But even more important is the fact that the tapestry is more than a picture. Its a whole story and it's purpose is to capture the events and justify the Norman actions. You've compared Shakespeare to Judge Dredd and said the pictures aren't much cop.
The second issue is that much of the art was produced by monks who were principally concerned with replicating or translating words. Illustrations were secondary and intended to convey a meaning rather than be naturalistic. The idea of perspective wasn't unknown but it was considered unimportant. To take a modern example, is it important that South Park is badly illustrated?
TDK- the cave painting may have also had an additional purpose, we just can't be sure what it was.
" I've often wondered why the medieval stuff is so crap but never thought to compare it with those cave paintings."
The cave paintings were thought to be celebrations (or propitiations) of the hunt - a realistic, rather than impressionistic, rendition would therefore be needed, perhaps?
TDK- the cave painting may have also had an additional purpose, we just can't be sure what it was.
Well as Julia says, almost certainly.
But the point remains. Your central question is why are the the medieval paintings "crap"? In this case you define crap to be unrealistic. Well if the artist didn't strive for realism the question is answered.
TDK
I believe that cavemen had what would now seem extraordinary amounts of leisure time. There are probably a lot of rubbish cave paintings as well but they'd have had sufficient chance to practice that they got the knack.
Plus one might argue that prehistoric hunters would be likely to have exceptional observational skills.
As TDK says, the medieval artists were communicating a coded convention more akin to allegory or symbolism; it simply wasn't expected to resemble real life.
I believe that cavemen had what would now seem extraordinary amounts of leisure time.
Hmmm????.
The myth of the Noble Savage is strangely persistent, it reappears from Greek times through Rousseau to the modern Green movement. Supposedly more peaceful, more egalitarian, non-sexist or Matriarchal, true communism and in harmony with nature. Now it's stocked with loads of leisure time.
Through all recorded history the proportion of work to leisure time has declined. Yet we are supposed to believe that in pre-recorded history, man had an easy life. Odd why he gave it up really. I guess it was killing off all the unicorns that brought it to an end.
Medieval art was a bit crap. They lost either interest in, or knowledge how to depict, scale, perspective and likeness.
They'd also lost the ability to make indoor plumbing and reasonable roads.
TDK- I don't think it is implausible that they had a lot of leisure time.
Most of recorded history has concerned agricultural based societies, scarcely populated hunter gatherers may have needed much less time working.
Some studies have found that when agriculture was introduced, the average size of humans decreased which suggests that the hunter gatherers had more abundant food supplies.
Post a Comment