Art -- Europe; Europe -- Description and travel; Europe -- History
It is not until the Renaissance that the cult of deception comes in, and
mutton masquerades as lamb, while silly columns and pediments are pasted
on where there is no need and brick is plastered over to magnify the
apparent opulence of the owner. It is at this same time that a mean
individualism appears, and each builder tries to outface his neighbor.
The Grande Place in Brussels is a good example of this new selfishness,
and for chaotic originality compares almost favourably with a city
street of the nineteenth century. It is all very amusing, these rows of
serrated slices, bedecked with mishandled “orders” and crested with
miscellaneous gorgeousness on the lines of the sterns of the proud
owner’s still prouder galleons, and the result is engagingly theatrical
and fantastic, but it is a grave commentary on a new civilisation that
has lost in culture just in proportion as it has increased in
efficiency.
It is dangerous to think too much about architecture--or any art for
that matter. The thirteenth century was supreme in its achievement
because it thought so much about religion and character and getting the
really good things out of life that for reward it was actually inspired,
and so probably thought as little about its art as it did about
eugenics; being quite content to do the things it was impelled to do by
an impulse for which it was not consciously responsible and which it
made little effort to control. The Renaissance thought so much about
art, as well as about its own thoughts (which didn’t matter anyway),
that even in its best work there is an opulent self-consciousness that
defeats its own ends and has issue at last in a self-conscious opulence
that is the nadir of culture. These builders of Flanders and Brabant and
Artois and Luxembourg and the Rhineland thought as little about art as
their very different followers of the Middle Ages, and they certainly
lacked the divine inspiration that made Reims superhuman, as St. Thomas
Aquinas and Leonardo da Vinci and Shakespeare were superhuman, but the
old instinct for beauty had not been burned and hammered out of them by
coal and iron, or reversed into an unintelligible jargon (like the
Lord’s Prayer said backward) by an insolent intellectualism and a
mordant secularism; and so, even when they used pseudo-Renaissance forms
in their cheerful and humorous fashion, they managed to produce work
that has a certain quality that the best-educated architect of this
century of efficient training cannot contrive to obtain in spite of all
his labours.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account