Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Home › Forums › Ireland › reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches › Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
I think we have to be careful with the use of the term ‘reviving’.
Certainly, the drive to re-descover classicism defines the renaissance, but in terms of architecture, it was the rules of classicism that preoccupied these 16th century Italian architects and architectural theorists.
They were not trying to replicate individual classical buildings, they set out to learn, understand and propagate the rules and the language of classical architecture and with that knowledge under their belts, they moved on from ‘mannerism’ and ushered in the high renaissance. The next generation, people like Bernini and Longhena [as discussed above], took it to the next level with Baroque.
Ad primum: agreed
Ad secundum: agreed iuxta modum. Certainly, the likes of Alberti, Serlio, Raphael, Palladio did set out to re-discover the principles of classical architecture. But, having done so all of these gentlemen applied them to building what they took to be buildings which could have been/or had been constructed according to the principles of Vetruvius. I do not think we are suggesting that they set out to copy classical buildings which would not have been very practical as prctically nothing existed to copy. And of course, it was to be expected that variant emphases would be found between different theorists and theorists in different generations – as we find in the representation of “reality” in renaissance mannerist and baroque painting. Clearly, the “gilded” reality of Raphael differes noticeably from the pretty awful and sometimes ghastly “reality” of Caravaggio.