If there's one thing in this world that I'll never have a full grasp on, its cathedrals. Vast, mind-numbingly beautiful structures in stone and concrete, they bedazzle the eye and the spirit with perfectly formed arches, intricate sculpture, delicate filigree in gold, and--what on earth? A really ugly painting. It befuddles me how amazing architecture from 1066 or whenever was so ornate that each wall in a room is supported by several identical hand-carved ornate columns, but the actual walls themselves are covered in really ugly paintings of disproportionate people and 2-D landscapes. Remember, this is pre-Michaelangelo. Canterbury cathedral, for all its might (it takes up a good chunk of the town) and prowess, is full of them. If people were artistically inclined enough at the time that they could create this church and cloister and crypt and breezeways and tombs topped with sculptures of the deceased and all of its lovely stained glass windows, you'd think they'd have painters around who could draw a person who actually looks real. Perspective drawing wasn't huge at the time but you could at least draw a figure in prayer with two arms of the same length, surely. 1000's painting leaves something to be desired.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, I haven't laughed out loud so frequently at a blog...ever. I mean laugh, too, not just chuckle. Midwest Ohio could use a few more people like you.
why thank you! That's the first comment I've gotten. Didn't realize people would actually look at this. Perhaps i should clean up my language.
Post a Comment