Specifically, it is also true of the Gothic. We think of the Gothic as equally plain, austere, unadorned - the brute masculinity of stone even where it is treated lightly. But actually, a Gothic building in its context was as garish and multi-coloured as a Hindoo temple or the Parthenon in its heyday. The colours have long since faded and we have forgotten. It is only when we go to somewhere like India that we are reminded - or rather, confronted - with the variegated reality of the traditional aesthetic.
Here is a picture illustrating the contrast between the Gothic we know and the Gothic reconstructed in its original glory:
We are aghast. Why paint over all those beautiful stone surfaces? But we are wrong. Traditional tastes were quite different. Theirs was a technicolor vision of heaven. Here are closer studies of the same:
We are wrong, in any case, to associate subdued colouring with the "traditional" and primary colours and garishness with the "primitive". The traditional aesthetic, east and west, loved bright colours. It is only classical art students who have developed the bookish and altogether false notion that such colourings detract from classical sculptural and architectural forms. Realising this changes the way we see things and restores pure colour to its proper place in traditional aesthetics.
Yours,
Harper McAlpine Black
No comments:
Post a Comment