In the Romanesque Church the Interior Decoration Was More Important Than the Architecture. Do You Agree?
From studying Romanesque art and architecture we can see that there are many points for and against the statement ‘in the Romanesque church the interior decoration was more important than the architecture’. There are many surviving Romanesque churches throughout Europe which we can look to when discussing topics like this particular one. However, many of these churches have been redecorated, restored, extended in later periods or even just left in disrepair, but from looking at a wide range of buildings from different regions and countries we can get a general sense of what the buildings would have looked like at the time. In my essay I will discuss points in favour of the above statement, points against the above statement and also my own opinion on the subject.
I will firstly discuss a few of the points in favour of the topic ‘interior decoration was more important than the architecture’. Looking at many Romanesque churches and buildings we can see that the interior decoration is more important than the architecture. The first point, and example, is that the architecture was plain and basic, more about being structurally sound than aesthetically pleasing the viewers, and we can see this at Cuddesdon Church, in Oxfordshire. This church in England, even though the architecture and interior decoration are both modest compared with many other Romanesque churches, shows us that the interior decoration is more important than the architecture. The exterior stone walls are thick and undecorated. The architecture is exclusively for functional reasons, not decorative. There is a tower, west portal and south portal off this cruciform shaped church. However the interior decoration in this church was more elaborately considered and carried out than the architecture. One example to show this is the tower crossing, which has richly ornamented Norman arches. All the outer faces of the arches have two orders with angle half-rolls, except for the arch facing the nave. This
I will firstly discuss a few of the points in favour of the topic ‘interior decoration was more important than the architecture’. Looking at many Romanesque churches and buildings we can see that the interior decoration is more important than the architecture. The first point, and example, is that the architecture was plain and basic, more about being structurally sound than aesthetically pleasing the viewers, and we can see this at Cuddesdon Church, in Oxfordshire. This church in England, even though the architecture and interior decoration are both modest compared with many other Romanesque churches, shows us that the interior decoration is more important than the architecture. The exterior stone walls are thick and undecorated. The architecture is exclusively for functional reasons, not decorative. There is a tower, west portal and south portal off this cruciform shaped church. However the interior decoration in this church was more elaborately considered and carried out than the architecture. One example to show this is the tower crossing, which has richly ornamented Norman arches. All the outer faces of the arches have two orders with angle half-rolls, except for the arch facing the nave. This
Bibliography: • http://www.sacred-destinations.com/reference/romanesque-architecture • http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Romanesque • http://www.sacred-destinations.com/categories/romanesque