The Nature of Gothic

I remember reading John Ruskin's The Nature of Gothic, part of his larger work The Stones of Venice, and thought at the time is was a good psychological theory for the 19th century.

As I've gotten older the less I feel about this. His idea was in the third stage, Gothic Art, the artist could just rearrange random elelments in certain places seperate from the larger form of the architectual design of a building and do pretty much whatever, very liberating. But then I see this picture of a Norman gate and it angers me. The head is so close to the apex of the arch but is off. Just makes me want to climb up there and fix it with a chisel and a hammer.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Onasander · 41-45, M

That's 100% Gothic according to Ruskin's art theory. The Nature of Gothic isn't too long and is all over the net if you are interested in reading it.

ElwoodBlues · M

I always thought you needed a pointed arch to be considered gothic!

Onasander · 41-45, M

@ElwoodBlues Under his art theory no, he broke art into three psychological types, I believe it was Egyptian (unchanging stiff monolithic architecture), Greek (rational and mathematical, you could infinitely rearrange the parts while keeping the ratios and style uniform) and then Gothic, which is opposite.... individual workmen doing pretty much whatever in their section in rebellion to the overall plan.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Onasander The cathedrals that I've enjoyed visiting tend to have rational mathematical structures to support the load, but then workmen were given individual scope on things like stained glass windows and gargoyles and bas reliefs of saints. So maybe 90% Greek, 10% gothic??

CrazyMusicLover · 31-35

Now I want to read it too.

JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M

Add a comment...