امشب یا پیر می شم یا شکسپیر

امشب بی بی ناز توی فیس بوکش نوشت: شکسپیر می گه : یا به اندازه آرزوهات تلاش کن یا به اندازه تلاشت آرزو کن. ترجمه : تو که نمی تونی گُه بخوری، گُه می خوری که گُه بخوری

حالا حکایت منه....

به زودی در این مکان مقاله کوفتی من قرار می گیرد و ما بالاخره وقت می کنیم که کوفته کوفتیمونو کوفت کنیم. ان شاء الله.

پی نوشت: مردم تو ایران ریختن تو خیابون با خطر بالقوه کتک، تجاوز یا مقتول شدن! من اینجا تو سر خودم می زنم با خطر بالفعل بدبختی، گشنگی، خستگی و ترس نمره و تحقیر! کدوم بدتره؟

و این هم مشق شب:

Review on Gothic/Italian “Gothic”: Toward a Redefinition

Mervin Trachtenberg in this paper discusses about late medieval architecture and main focus is about comparison between Gothic in Europe with core of France and Italian style in the same period. He briefly describes problematic definitions of Gothic architecture which couldn’t be comprehensively about constructions of that era specifically Italian works. So after redefinition of late medieval architecture style and its features, he emphasizes on Italian style.

I believe in his approach that to describe a style, it is better to look into place and positions of its initiation roots and concepts rather than specifying the forms, features and details of that style. Even more; I do believe that this approach shouldn’t be just about the Gothic, but other styles which are labeled by specific names during history. But it seems that for this art history educational problem, Trachtenberg chooses the first easiest solution by creating another label (phrase).

He correctly emphasizes that “the world does involve a key to understanding the period” (p22) but in the same time linguistically the word brings its meaning via historical memory of people who used it. It is not easy to change or replace the word “Gothic” with centuries of history with another phrase as he suggests “medieval modernism” (p23). At least it is available to make some correction in its meaning among users although this process takes much time. On the other hand creating new words and phrases is not easy and needs its linguistic specialists. In this case particularly, does medieval modernism brings the both coupling meanings of modern and anticlassical as the author intends? Even he couldn’t stands up to his new phrase and after few paragraphs reuses “Gothic” word for that style again.

After redefining the architecture of that era, Trachtenberg emphasize on the main characters of style: “In the period of medieval modernism the historicizing elements disappear”. (p28) So he calls these two features of modernity and antihistoricism the definition keys of main European Lands’ Gothic and as evidence he brings and compares examples of French churches and cathedrals such as St. Denis, Notre-Dame, Amiens cathedral, Troyes cathedral and etc. He mentions many details and as an example he says “similarly, the capital, that crucial sign of the orders, is abstracted into crocket from and shrivels to a mere speck in the gigantic elevation, and eventually in many cases, it disappears altogether”. (p29) At last in French cases he mentions that “to the eye of the specialist, each of the French cathedral has a unique personality; but … they form a closely linked series in chain of development in which possibilities of variation are rather narrowly circumscribed” (p29)The other point about choosing this phrase is the characteristic which Trachtenberg emphasizes on Gothic: modernism.

He states that “Gothic had become the prestige architecture of the rest of Europe [except Italy], emblematic of haut monde modernity” (p33) I want to argue that, could it be called as the main feature of one style? As he also mentioned himself about Romanesque, modernity is a feature which could be seen in many styles; even more almost all styles. That’s the character which keeps one style or culture away from duplication and being boring: makes one style different from previous ones and also by drawing a border, makes ways to the future. This comportment can be seen in styles after Gothic, such as Renaissance, Modernism, Post-Modernism, etc and even before that in Romanesque, Byzantine, Roman, Etruscan and even Greek art and architecture.

I agree with the way he analyzes the details of late medieval architecture: first looking to concepts of creation of particular style and then finding out its characteristics through it. But as he mentions himself his study is all going around the gothic core of France and he doesn’t bring any other examples of other parts of Europe and without mentioning to them, he generalizes the Gothic features. I can understand that inclusive design needs much more space than this paper, but if not available, I don’t believe in generalization without proof either.

After redefinition of Gothic architecture, Trachtenberg states that “Gothic had become the prestige architecture of the rest of Europe [except Italy], emblematic of haut monde modernity” (p33) by this transition, he goes through Italian late medieval architecture. By mentioning “French modernism, with inherent antihistoricism, was so antithetical to the prevailing Italian outlook” (p33) he starts to have comparison study of modernity and antihistoric characters of his redefinition in Italian late medieval style. he says himself in page 22, “Italy was never really Gothic” although I am agreeing with him based on his definitions of Gothic architecture, but this conclusion definitely is based on his premise nevertheless it may be not true based on others.

He enters to Italian medieval architectural typology with quotation: “The great exception to this pattern was Italy. Trachtenberg in introduction of paper (first paragraph) states that as Italy was never the colony of France, but with “an independent culture and its individual architecture, it used Gothic for their own purpose.” (p22) and later he adds “Italy did not follow the developmental stage of the north. For the most part in Romanesque did not embody a sustained conflict between historicist and modernist tendencies” (p30) It is interesting how he mentions “Whereas the Renaissance condemned Italy for having been too Gothic, modern scholarship has tended to fault it for not having been Gothic enough” (p22) and as I believe in repetition of history, I am not surprised that he mentions “I find no basic difference between Romanesque and Gothic Italy” (p32) I like and believe it is important to know his precision to indicate continuity of Italian art and architecture in medieval era and even in its most history of art.

So Trachtenberg premise is “Italy was never antihistoricist but, to the contrary, always deeply historicist; deeply and irrevocably bound to its vast ancient heritage that was so much richer, more pervasive and culturally omnipresent, than anywhere else in Europe.” (p30) He believes but not proofs it with necessary evidence and examples that “The source material of monumental works was open to virtually all directions: the classical part, the wider Mediterranean world of Byzantium and Islam…” (p31) and continues “it was not an invention of medieval Italy but one that went back to its ancients roots.” (p31)

Although I totally agree by his statement and believe Italian reach background context could absorb, modify and redefine newly imported cultures to make new style as nearest as possible to Italian culture. I also believe this discussion without proof and examples would be hard to make connection with a particular reader who doesn’t have knowledge about these mentioned historical eras or hasn’t have experienced these kind of contexts like Italy with amalgam of cultural and layers in its history. I gather that he knew this fact himself that’s why he continues to describe a little bit about Roman architecture, but yet it doesn’t seem enough. Specifically, there are no pure examples of details in previous eras which show the Italian absorption in the essay, and readers would just face to general statement.

About another character of his newly redefined late medieval architecture, His idea is “Italian architects rejected French modernism as a system” (p33) but doesn’t go deeper in this state. To continue on linguistic problem of his redefinition, he doesn’t describe the meaning of “modernism as a system” in his statement and just links French modernity with its antihistoricism which is close to first part of this comparison approach. As I mentioned before, I do believe feature of modernity couldn’t work as character here.

At last Trachtenberg discusses that how Italians had been capable to save their originality during all these years and having their own redefinition of styles and cultures. He describes it like “ability of Italian architects to reinterpreted and to lay with antique forms, and even to disregard them on occasional at will” (p31) so he comes into Theory of Italian Eclecticism Ability and he call it “core of its [Italian] architectural outlook and method” (p31) Specifically, in gothic style he states “the Italians evidently also appreciated the intense visual complexity and energy of the Gothic and found ways to incorporate these effects by using Gothic forms attached to otherwise traditional buildings” (p33) so at first he refers to formal elements of Gothic architecture which have been so frequency in gothic scholarship.

As an example of Italian eclecticism in late medieval period, he mentions to Pisa Cathedral. But the point is that he still brings the ideas in general and doesn’t go deep into details which beside bringing just one example here, doesn’t seem enough. Moreover in this level he doesn’t mention that his purpose of Italian eclecticism only includes formal elements or he also decides to go further into meanings of elements too. Just after his next notes, readers underestand his approach to both sides and the point of lack of evidences for each, shows itself more.

At last, as I said above he mentions at a deeper level Italian late medieval architecture which has “inherent spirituality of the Gothic” which is “created by the medieval modernist method” he says: “Italy sought to use Gothic also to convey spiritual meaning along with other typically historicizing, iconographic means to that end” (p34) Trachtenberg doesn’t describe this sprite clearly but it is not that much hard to bring it out from his own sentences which he means “complexity, energy and meaning in integrated and inventive as well as flashy ways” (p35)

The key word here is “spirituality”. I like that he doesn’t ignore to face with this aspect of eclecticism or just simply looking formally to it. But in the other hand this aspect is deeper level of meanings of Italian architecture which need much more space for study. I can understand that it is kind of impossible to gather all of these details in one paper, but it could be helpful or even essential to mention some references. If not, as it happens here, there would be many questions without any answer such as how Trachtenberg reaches to this categorization? where is the border of two aspects of Italian eclecticism (formal and spiritual)? Then how he reached to those few evidence? etc. There is no explanation available in his essay and as he mentions himself “these categories of reuse and reinterpretation blurred and overlapped.”

The only point he brings for making some sense of determining these borders is mentioning usage of specific elements in particular contexts which hadn’t been used before in those kind of contexts. For evidences he mentions to Papal Palace as secular architecture and conversely in St. Furtunato in Todi or S. Maria Novella. He concludes this level: “In the other world, there tended to be a direct correlation between the degree of spirituality inherent in an Italian project and the degree to which Gothic was used” (p35) maybe here it is what he refers in quotation (mentioned before) “[Italy is] an independent culture and its individual architecture, it used Gothic for their own purpose.” Although he is not mentioning which purposes he means and how the particular architecture style could act as a “purpose” for society but maybe as he emphasize on meanings in Italy at end of paper, expressing the meaning by modern way is the answer of such questions.

For conclusion I found this essay interesting as different inclusive approach to historical style which includes sociopolitical situation and also with emphasizing on meanings rather than formalistic viewpoints. The few argues which I had, were about linguistic and limited approach which may causes based on limitation of one paper.