Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Three Romanesque Great Churches in Germany, France and England, and the Discipline of Architectural History

Three Romanesque Great Churches in Germany, France and England, and the Discipline of... (This is the text of the SAFIGB Annual Lecture, delivered at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, on 29 November 2010) This is a lecture about architecture and politics in the eleventh century. First, however, I would like to say a few words about another aspect of architectural history, namely style, because it does not feature in the body of the lecture and because of the criticism it currently faces and has faced for some time. I shall append my comments to two recollections. The first of these relates to a presentation in the 1990s at which the speaker identified the different kinds of expertise needed to understand a building, including that of the palaeographer for the documentary history, of the petrologist if it was a masonry structure, and so on to the architectural historian, who was given the task of dealing with style. The second recollection concerns a conference a few years later at which one of the participants said they wished that discussion of style could be banned. The two remarks taken together lead to an amusing conclusion, but they were separate utterances and so should be considered separately. As to the first, there are of course many other contributions that the architectural historian can make, not least in terms of social history, but I am pleased to see the task of assessing the relevance of style assigned to them because, if they do not undertake it, it is unlikely that anyone else will. On the second, I have some sympathy with the speaker, because style can be such a slippery concept that at times one might think it better to do without it. But, however justified such criticism, the varying stylistic characteristics found in objects carry so much information about the choices made by innumerable individuals in the course of human history that it would be counterproductive to abandon them, regardless of the difficulties. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Architectural History Cambridge University Press

Three Romanesque Great Churches in Germany, France and England, and the Discipline of Architectural History

Architectural History , Volume 54: 22 – Apr 11, 2016
Download PDF
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/cambridge-university-press/three-romanesque-great-churches-in-germany-france-and-england-and-the-2d0MPbgVMr

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2011
ISSN
2059-5670
eISSN
0066-622X
DOI
10.1017/S0066622X00003981
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(This is the text of the SAFIGB Annual Lecture, delivered at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, on 29 November 2010) This is a lecture about architecture and politics in the eleventh century. First, however, I would like to say a few words about another aspect of architectural history, namely style, because it does not feature in the body of the lecture and because of the criticism it currently faces and has faced for some time. I shall append my comments to two recollections. The first of these relates to a presentation in the 1990s at which the speaker identified the different kinds of expertise needed to understand a building, including that of the palaeographer for the documentary history, of the petrologist if it was a masonry structure, and so on to the architectural historian, who was given the task of dealing with style. The second recollection concerns a conference a few years later at which one of the participants said they wished that discussion of style could be banned. The two remarks taken together lead to an amusing conclusion, but they were separate utterances and so should be considered separately. As to the first, there are of course many other contributions that the architectural historian can make, not least in terms of social history, but I am pleased to see the task of assessing the relevance of style assigned to them because, if they do not undertake it, it is unlikely that anyone else will. On the second, I have some sympathy with the speaker, because style can be such a slippery concept that at times one might think it better to do without it. But, however justified such criticism, the varying stylistic characteristics found in objects carry so much information about the choices made by innumerable individuals in the course of human history that it would be counterproductive to abandon them, regardless of the difficulties.

Journal

Architectural History – Cambridge University Press

Published: Apr 11, 2016

There are no references for this article.