Talk:Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Concerns
Just two, really. This article is a gallery right now, but I assume that the main editors are intending to finish it. What exactly is the planed structure, since it is not apparent to me right now how this will deal with Romanesque regionalisms? Secondly, I think the article title should be changed to remove the comma, for stylistic purposes and clarity (e.g. if the subject appears in a list). But I can't think of a better title than "Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture". Srnec 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ooh! Another one! Should this article be scrapped in favour of separate articles on Spanish Romanesque, French Romanesque, Sicilian Romanesque, German Romanesque, etc.? Articles on the specific regional styles that would be devoted to their characteristics? Srnec 05:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Concerns
- Yes Attilios, it's Rochester blooming Cathedral!
- Yes, Smec! I agree entirely that they all need separate articles. However, I like Banister Fletcher's notion of "History of Architecture on the Comparative Method". If you take a look at the page Italian Renaissance painting, development of themes, you'll see where this page is going.
Buut I haven't quite decided whether to deal with headings that are "Features" eg West front and show the countries under them, or conversely, have headings which are "Countries" and show the features under them. eg Germany and then pics of a plan, an arial, a west front, and east end etc. Easy for some countries, hard for others.
So right now, I'm favouring the former.
--Amandajm 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- But couldn't a subsection at Romanesque architecture contain a comparative summary with links to the major regional styles? Srnec 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It could indeed, mate, but then little mandyjam will have to sort out every single one of those articles to make sure that the regional characteristcs are actually defined, and she's got something else on her mind. I'll do it the easy way for now, and that way when I've got more energy for it. In fact, a lot of the regional differences are already described in the article Romanesque architecture. Also, the article is pretty long, and on my browser, its very slow to load. --Amandajm 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What I would really like is to stop discussing bloody art and architecture on five different pages simultaneously and get on with writing this stuff because the page at present looks semi-ridiculous. --Amandajm 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I just want Wikipedia to be easily navigable and the information easily accessible. That's my overriding concern in this matter. I'm sure it will work out and content matters most, but what is content if nobody will every see it? Srnec 04:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if that is really your concern, then leave the title of the Italian Renaissance (and so on) alone, because the order of the words is significant. Both articles are complementary to the "main", and can be accessed through the main articles. That is how and why they are designed. Now pleeease let me get on with writing the content because the pedantic nitpicking can wait. Right now I have a block of time on my hands which is being wasted. As of Monday, my time will be limited. writing a major generic article is a fairly big commitment.
- Basically, there are ten thousand wikipedia editors that are capable of arguing about a name, adding two or three pics of buildings and correcting a typo. But as far as I can tell, there is only one person around who is prepared to put in the time, the research and the personal expertise to create an article comparing the Romanesque architecture of European countries. If you or Tlu.... oh my spelling is hopeless.... but if you want to write it, tell me. If you don't, but you've got information to add, put it on the discussion page and I'll incorporate it. I'm good at including other peoples info.
- The article that really needs writing is Cathedral architecture of Eastern Europe or Church architecture of Eastern Europe. There is plenty to do, other than minor hassles over something major that is trying to happen, but is being frustrated by nitpicking. Is there a really fantastic article on Romanesque architecture in Germany? If there isn't please go and write it. --Amandajm 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lund Cathedral
The article claims that Lund Cathedral has "massive western towers based on those of Lincoln Cathedral in England". What is the source for this? It can hardly refer to the current Lincoln Cathedral - if it does, I have to say I see no similarities - but presumably its predecessor. Is there a reconstruction of that anywhere?
Even though it would be reasonable to assume English influence, considering the contacts between England and Denmark at that time, the models for the Cathedral of Lund are, as far as I am aware of, usually assumed to have been German (and Zettervall emphasized that aspect in his changes to the exterior). The plan of the crypt in Lund is supposed to be almost identical to that in Speyer (just smaller). Olaus 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 Lund Cathedral in 1870, before Helgo Zettervall |
 The current Gothic cathedral of Lincoln |
 Western front of Nidaros Cathedral |
[edit] It's a stupid mistake!
It's Nidaros Cathedral that's based directly on Lincoln, not Lund! Thanks for drawing that to my attention!
I've just taken a look at Zettervall and realise that I will have to delete a pic of the three spires on Uppsala Cathedral from Gothic architecture because they are also one of his "little improvements". (pish! tush!) --Amandajm 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the current appearance of Nidaros Cathedral, this makes more sense (I added a picture here, for reference), but it also appears largely to be a late 19th century reconstruction of a part of the cathedral that was badly preserved after the series of disasters that the building had gone through. The bokmål Norwegian Wikipedia has "featured articles" both on the restoration of the cathedral and on the western front. (I haven't read these closely, and don't have the time now. It would be nice if somebody would translate the whole set of Norwegian articles on the Nidaros Cathedral.) Olaus 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Regardless of the restoration, the actual form of the facade was created by English masons who had actually worked at Lincoln. It was an odd choice actually, since Lincoln's facade was built piecemeal and retains a central section that is Romanesque. The lower, Romanesque stages of the towers almost disappeared behind the screen wall. The pinnacles on the corners of the facade (not visible in this pic) are so enormous that they are are big as the spires on many churches. Moreover, the best way to actually see the building is from a tower on the castle nearby, because when you walk in the gatehouse to the cathedral precinct, you are overwhelmed by this humungous facade and it's difficult to even take a photo.--Amandajm 09:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I just took a look at the restoration. What a great article it looks! Pity I can't read it! Thanks, Olaus. --Amandajm 09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
