The introduction to the textbook discussed the significance of art, and its function. Must art be aesthetically pleasing, and is everything around us art? I think the idea of art being a functional thing that exists in our daily life connected strongly to the birth of the altarpiece–that the value of art is also connected to the ideas it conveys and the wit with which it’s delivered. Are altarpieces witty? Maybe not, but they certainly convey a functional idea with aesthetic and technical skill. They connected the physical world with the divine–something that churches at the time were very interested in.
Beyond altarpieces, our book introduces architecture as telling a story. Churches are especially symptomatic of this, as many cathedrals were built with the intent of trying to catch a glimpse of perfect eternity and give it to churchgoers. Also the auxiliary intents of demonstrating wealth, skill, and building a place people are willing to watch a tedious ritual in. Just as different sects’ ideals differ, so too do their religious buildings. The architectural difference between a protestant church in a strip mall and St Paul’s Basilica is partially due to dogma. Each place tells a story of what is valued, the circumstances it ‘lives’ in, and the people telling the story.
In 13th century Italy, we can see the architectural difference between a state at peace and a state at war. Florence’s Palazzo della Signora is a fortress, easily defendable and ready to fight. The Doge’s palace, however, is resplendent with open spaces, arcades, and is characterized by little defensibility in general. Both of these buildings are art, and similarly valuable to history–but they serve unique functions and tell very different stories.