what happened to art in the middle ages?

[Rÿcher]

let me cite some examples of art throughout history to preface

The dawn of man

Round about 900 AD

Gothic/Medieval period

The cave paining is a very decent representation of horse.

The middle one is, in my opinion is a very poor depiction of Ethelred the Unready, ruler of England c. 960 AD. I've seen better crayon doodlings from a 5 year-old. Seriously.

The last one needs no description. It's beautiful. Masterfully done.

Did they think in the Dark Ages that the study of art was somehow heresy or something?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I think you need to expand your search a bit, because there are some lovely examples of art from the Middle Ages, especially if you broaden the definition to include metalworking, ceramics, architectural features, and check other places besides Europe. Islamic art of the time was quite elaborate and beautiful.

 

[FordSVT]

Wow, that's a pretty thorough a brilliant summation of the entirety of human art throughout history.

Or it isn't and you don't have much of a point.

 

[zephramc]

The middle one is, in my opinion is a very poor depiction of Ethelred the Unready, ruler of England c. 960 AD. I've seen better crayon doodlings from a 5 year-old. Seriously.

Here's your answer. What with the fall of Rome, the later crusades, as well as all the other wars, plagues, crappy rulers, starvation, etc... 5 years was the average life expectancy for most people.

BTW is Ethelred holding a sword or a lightsaber?

 

[SPOCKED]

Spaceman Spiff: For heathenous acts and douchebaggery, I doth verily bannish thee, without hope of parole or pardon, to the vast, frozen wastelands of the Outernet.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, from my roommate who just took a medieval art class, I can tell you that there was plenty of great art from the early middle ages (more in things like architecture, iirc). Sadly, since I don't really care about art history (I'm uncultured, I know), I can't give any specific examples.

 

[FordSVT]

The middle one is, in my opinion is a very poor depiction of Ethelred the Unready, ruler of England c. 960 AD. I've seen better crayon doodlings from a 5 year-old. Seriously.

Here's your answer. What with the fall of Rome, the later crusades, as well as all the other wars, plagues, crappy rulers, starvation, etc... 5 years was the average life expectancy for most people.

BTW is Ethelred holding a sword or a lightsaber?

Neither.

"Marital aid."

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Well, from my roommate who just took a medieval art class, I can tell you that there was plenty of great art from the early middle ages (more in things like architecture, iirc).

Indeed. There were some amazingly detailed and elaborate stained glass windows and Gothic architecture during that time.

 

[JNG]

I think OP might be zeroing in on a question of style. Part of it was imitation of older illustrations from religious texts and part of it had to do limitations associated with the art used to illuminate manuscripts, but it was just...the style. And because of the state of Europe during that time, the style didn't change especially quickly.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Ahhh, a nice old family portrait. I can trace my ancestry back to Ethelred (and it wasn't his fault!)

 

[zephramc]

Neither.

"Marital aid."

 

[Pingfah]

It's a beautiful painting but I've never understood why pre-1500 ish their grasp on perspective was so poor.

I mean the artist has kind of grasped the basic concept, but there's some obvious glaring and huge problems with this painting.

But the true perspective was right there in front of him, maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but I don't recall having to have it explained to me in any real detail, you just look at it, and draw it. The correct way to render the perspective is obvious even to an amateur like me, so why did they have such huge problems with it?

 

[zephramc]

It's a beautiful painting but I've never understood why pre-1500 ish their grasp on perspective was so poor.

I mean the artist has kind of grasped the basic concept, but there's some obvious glaring and huge problems with this painting.

But the true perspective was right there in front of him, maybe i'm remembering this wrong, but I don't recall having to have it explained to me in any real detail, you just look at it, and draw it. The correct way to render the perspective is obvious even to an amateur like me, so why did they have such huge problems with it?

I'll admit that I don't know very much about art or art history, but were there ever particular trends that artists followed. Much like TV today, if a new series is somewhat successful, you will see "copycat" series' popup not long after.

Perhaps a somewhat exaggerated perspective was favored by artists of the time. This trend continued for several years (decades? centuries?) until a new style became more popular.

 

[Pingfah]

Good question, I have a large art encyclopedia in my lap, but it merely explains that pre-renaissance perspective was a slow development, and many facets of it were mathematically worked out by pioneers.

But that doesn't explain why something that is seemingly second nature to us now ever needed pioneering. I just can't wrap my head around how somebody could not understand it simply from observation.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, there were some rudimentary attempts at perspective (not that it always looked that great), but a lot of times it had to do with why they were making it. If the point was to depict a story for illiterate masses (like the Bayeux Tapestry, for example), it was more important to make the King look bigger than everyone else (so you would know it was the king) than to have any kind of perspective.

 

[Holdfast]

Did they think in the Dark Ages that the study of art was somehow heresy or something?

No.

Just that drawing in the dark is really hard to do.

... Ethelred the Unready...

Random Fact of the Day: Unready is a corruption of Unraed (Bad Advice), which is a pun on his name (Aethelred = Good Advice). They may not have been able to draw, but they could certainly do comedy.

 

[An Officer]

There are studies that argue a lot of the more ancient cave paintings were done by shamen on drugs. Graham Hancock writes about this in his Supernatural book. He also discusses why the guy who decoded DNA did it with the help of LSD.

 

[ryan123450]

A quick search for early medival art showed me a huge amount of beautiful metal work, sculpture, stained glass, and especially illustrated Bibles.

The "Dark" Ages weren't so dark.

 

[Rÿcher]

ruin my fun will ya?

 

[thestrangequark]

A theory I've read to account for what seems to be the devolution of art skill and technique from the Greek and Roman ages to the early Christian age is that the art of the early Christian era was greatly affected by the new idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing God. The early Christians didn't lack the ability to paint with perspective, they were intentionally disregarding the human perspective. Instead, they were attempting to show the world from God's perspective; God, who would be able to see everything, all sides, all aspects, and all angles at once.

Obviously, these artists were skilled in color, form, and content. The images are intriguing. They are also stylized. It's mainly perspective that they lack.