9
   

Why did the Renaissance end?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:23 am
@Eva,
Eva wrote:

The rebuilding of St. Peter's in Rome, considered by many to be "the crowning glory of Renaissance architecture," began in the early 1500s and continued with stops and starts for over a century. (Although the basic design is essentially Renaissance, Baroque elements were added later.)

That's questionable between art historians, I think.
And "from where they come". (When I heard art history at university, San Pietro in Vaticano was considered to be the first major Baroque building. But that view might have changed, especially when you just look at the first plans/models.)
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:24 am
@iamsam82,
iamsam82 wrote:
And I still maintain historical periods are not invented in the present by historians. Their names are, and the transitions between periods are obviously wide and blurred, but movement between periods in socio-historic terms is attested to by people living at the time too, eg the Petrarch example earlier and, I'm sure, many others.

People will always recognize change, especially when it's unwelcome change. No doubt people in the sixteenth century were complaining about all of the new innovations in art, science, literature, customs, and such, just as folks in the 1950s complained about the baneful influences of television, comic books, and rock and roll. Indeed, it would be far more surprising if you found people complaining about the fact that nothing had changed.

The danger is that you will rely on contemporaneous reports of change to justify your preconceived notions about when and why change took place. For instance, if you believe that the Renaissance ended in the 1490s, then you can look at reports of change from the 1490s to confirm your initial premise, while ignoring or discounting reports from other decades that also indicate that changes were taking place.

As it is, nobody in the 1490s said that they were sorry (or relieved) to see the end of the Renaissance, because that term simply wasn't used until much later. People may have recognized changes around them, but they also would have recognized continuities. Art and architecture, for instance, didn't cease on the day that Charles VIII invaded Italy, only to be reinvented as something entirely new the next day. There was no revolution, only an evolution.
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:25 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Eva wrote:

The rebuilding of St. Peter's in Rome, considered by many to be "the crowning glory of Renaissance architecture," began in the early 1500s and continued with stops and starts for over a century. (Although the basic design is essentially Renaissance, Baroque elements were added later.)

That's questionable between art historians, I think.
And "from where they come". (When I heard art history at university, San Pietro in Vaticano was considered to be the first major Baroque building. But that view might have changed, especially when you just look at the first plans/models.)


Bramante designed the original plan, which was adapted by Raphael and Michelangelo, all considered Renaissance architects. After Michelangelo died, others finished the dome and much of the interior with only minor changes to his plan.

During the Baroque era, Maderno elongated one arm of the basilica to form a nave (as originally proposed by Raphael), and added the entrance facade. After that, Bernini spent 40 years decorating the interior and constructing the piazza.

The result is a building that contains elements of both Renaissance and Baroque architecture. But the basic design is essentially Renaissance.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:28 am
@joefromchicago,
Very good post, joe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 04:05:04