The Art Historians Speak and what Happens Next

We finished Munzerama 1.0 on July 11. In the future, we hope to continue to follow Münzer's journey in the same manner to its conclusion. Please stay tuned. Any remarks so far are welcome!

As an art historian, what have I learned from this short journey so far?

The most obvious thing to me is that what was important to a 15th century visitor has little or nothing to do with the canon of quality that art historians have defined in the past century and a half. We have postulated important works and given the most importance to what has been academically defined as "Major Arts," i.e. Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, with such items as metalwork, textiles and ceramics relegated to a less important, minor status, not to mention painted and gilt trim on tombs and altarpiece frames, etc. In the past two decades, this whole issue is beginning to be redefined. Certainly in the late Middle Ages, price, effectiveness of function and the maker's skill and reputation in his profession were the great determinants. As far as religious architecture and objects are concerned, they were considered of a piece within the rituals of which they were a part, not as stand-alone "works of art." That they move us now has much more to do with our own cultural priorities and resonances.

This is equally true of the secular visual adornment market, which will be dealt with and made clear as Münzer's journey continues.

Secondly, there is no static "finished state," even when religious or other buildings were being constructed. Churches were continually modified over they centuries, parts destroyed intentionally or unintentionally and parts modified because of changes in ritual (and this is equally true, by the way of Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues). Since the mid-19th century, there have been modifications of another nature, as attempts to restore older churches have led to the purging of later additions, or the restoration of abandoned or degraded structures according to what can be surmised from documentation are undertaken. The Girona Cathedral we see now is quite different from what Münzer would have seen: in 1494, the building would have still had the Romanesque facade of the former structure that it gradually replaced (the Romanesque cloister is still retained). The east end of the nave would have been partially blocked by choir stalls. Many of its illustrious tombs would have probably been brightly painted with gilt detail, and certainly in better shape than they are now. Other altarpiece would have adorned its many chapels in both ambulatory and nave, and would have remained gated as they still are but also covered except when in use. Lighting, of course, would not have been electric, but rather hanging lamps. In short, the church would have been more adorned rather than the great, cleaned-up rather austere nave space we see today, though pews for the laity would have been non-existent.

In many other locations, reconstruction has gone much further. More will be said about this as we proceed.