The Vandal Essay
Conservation and Philosophy Research Paper
Table of Contents
References 3
Bibliography 4
James Wyatt, ‘the Destroyer’, ‘the Vandal’; was his reputation deserved for his work on some of England’s great cathedrals, or was he the victim of simply carrying out wishes of his employers?
Introduction:
Paragraph outlining his reputation and the perception through history – make reference to the fact that he also did some great work but that is sometimes overlooked due to the work he did on cathedrals. In the case of cathedrals though, he was doing the bidding of his masters – the bishops/ Deans… therefore should he be as vilified as he is? …. (450 words)
James Wyatts’ notoriety stems from his repairs and alterations at four important cathedrals, …show more content…
The cathedral at Hereford is of Norman pedigree but little of what stands there today remains in its original Norman form. There have been additions and alterations in nearly every century since its construction all of which have interred with its original form.
What
‘The restoration of Hereford was forced on the dean and chapter by the fall of the western tower in 1786. Unfortunately, they chose Wyatt to repair the damage, who not only did not rebuild the tower, but shortened the naveby one bay and destroyed the whole of the Norman triforium and celestory up to the central tower (from which he removed the spire). In their place he substituted a new west front and ‘Gothick’ work of feeble design – so feeble, indeed that Cottingham was later employed to improve the interior, and to him we owe the colouring of the vaults and the quite good carvels corbels to the vaulting shafts and other details.’ (Cobb …show more content…
Here he acknowledges that ‘not only are emulations more numerous than surviving originals, but many a past survives only or mainly in refractions of it’. He goes on to remark that ‘present day notions of Gothic owe less to scanty medieval remains than to subsequent additions that reflect and rework Gothic style and spirit.’ (p. 309)
Nicholas Taylor observes when talking about Pugin, Ruskin and Morris in his work, ‘Village in the City’, that ‘Under the guise of ‘revival their authors were in fact being highly original and inventive’ (Lowenthall p. 309)
‘The style of the thirteenth century was commonly taken as a standard of perfection and the restorer effaced as far as possible the evidences of later work, while all the new masonry and fittings were studiously carried out in this same fashion. The result of this process in too many cases was a wholesale clearance of interiors which has left them painfully base and unfurnished. [] and Salisbury Cathedral in England (before the time of Gilbert Scott) was similarly denuded.’ (Baldwin Brown
Table of Contents
References 3
Bibliography 4
James Wyatt, ‘the Destroyer’, ‘the Vandal’; was his reputation deserved for his work on some of England’s great cathedrals, or was he the victim of simply carrying out wishes of his employers?
Introduction:
Paragraph outlining his reputation and the perception through history – make reference to the fact that he also did some great work but that is sometimes overlooked due to the work he did on cathedrals. In the case of cathedrals though, he was doing the bidding of his masters – the bishops/ Deans… therefore should he be as vilified as he is? …. (450 words)
James Wyatts’ notoriety stems from his repairs and alterations at four important cathedrals, …show more content…
The cathedral at Hereford is of Norman pedigree but little of what stands there today remains in its original Norman form. There have been additions and alterations in nearly every century since its construction all of which have interred with its original form.
What
‘The restoration of Hereford was forced on the dean and chapter by the fall of the western tower in 1786. Unfortunately, they chose Wyatt to repair the damage, who not only did not rebuild the tower, but shortened the naveby one bay and destroyed the whole of the Norman triforium and celestory up to the central tower (from which he removed the spire). In their place he substituted a new west front and ‘Gothick’ work of feeble design – so feeble, indeed that Cottingham was later employed to improve the interior, and to him we owe the colouring of the vaults and the quite good carvels corbels to the vaulting shafts and other details.’ (Cobb …show more content…
Here he acknowledges that ‘not only are emulations more numerous than surviving originals, but many a past survives only or mainly in refractions of it’. He goes on to remark that ‘present day notions of Gothic owe less to scanty medieval remains than to subsequent additions that reflect and rework Gothic style and spirit.’ (p. 309)
Nicholas Taylor observes when talking about Pugin, Ruskin and Morris in his work, ‘Village in the City’, that ‘Under the guise of ‘revival their authors were in fact being highly original and inventive’ (Lowenthall p. 309)
‘The style of the thirteenth century was commonly taken as a standard of perfection and the restorer effaced as far as possible the evidences of later work, while all the new masonry and fittings were studiously carried out in this same fashion. The result of this process in too many cases was a wholesale clearance of interiors which has left them painfully base and unfurnished. [] and Salisbury Cathedral in England (before the time of Gilbert Scott) was similarly denuded.’ (Baldwin Brown