Robert J. Jackson
23 March 2000
Aesthetics, Images and Meaning: An investigation of symbolism in Gothic Architecture.
In this essay, I attempt to reconcile the difference between aesthetic and meaning. An Image is the
means by which I shall bring about this harmony, for an image at once embodies aesthetic and
meaning. More specifically, the image under investigation is Gothic Architecture.
An image is bicameral. On one hand, an image is an aesthetic presence. Each recognition
is an awareness of an image; this initial awareness is of an aesthetic appearance. But this aesthetic
appearance is also a presence, for the aesthetic itself of an image attracts our eye and installs itself
there as a presence. On the other hand, an image is a symbol with meaning. The image becomes a
statement about some idea and represents the meaning of that idea.
What is Gothic Architecture and how is it an image?
Gothic Architecture refers to a style of cathedral built, first in France, from the 12th century
through the 15th century. A temple is the house of God. A cathedral is a "symbol of the kingdom
of God on Earth." (GC intro)
I should now describe what distinguishes the Gothic style. In doing so, I shall abstract from
Otto Von Simson's first chapter of _The Gothic Cathedral _.
Two things make Gothic cathedrals unique: the use of light and the relationship between structure
and appearance.
On the Use of Light
For the first time, stained-glass becomes the wall. A Gothic cathedral uses light, manifest in
stained-glass, as an image. "Gothic may be described as transparent, diaphanous architecture." (4)
On the Use of Structure
Romanesque and Byzantine architecture uses structure as an invisible means to an aesthetic end. In
these, stucco ornamentation conceals the structure. In Gothic architecture, stucco ornamentation is
completely subordinate to the structure.
In the end, Gothic architecture is different from former architecture not by virtue of its
eschatological theme but by the different mode of evocation of that theme. It is different by virtue
of the new use of light and structure.
The Aesthetic Gothic Image
I said before that aesthetic is a presence. The primary purpose of the many parts of a Gothic
cathedral is structural. Each member insures stability. The patterns produced by these structural
members -- vaults, ribs, shafts et alia -- actually create the ornamentation. The aesthetic system
was determined by the structural system of these members. Ornamentation complies with that
aphorism, form follows function.
Unity is the mark of an architectural period. Structural exigencies determine the
manifestation of that unity. Each part of the Gothic cathedral is subject to a system in which order
is imposed over the formal arrangement of each architectural member. So the Gothic style is
unified by virtue of the primary purpose of structural arrangement.
But aesthetic must include more than structure. Though the structural system is precedent, a
Gothic cathedral is unified by virtue of the evocation of a theme. Yet isn't a theme symbolic? Yes,
if that theme is about some idea that transends human existance. But a commoner medieval
principle is that things in the world around us exist as things per se and not as ideas of things. God
is said to be demonstrable rather than a priori. The aristitelian principium individuationis suffices
as an example; "The Universal Cat materializes into an infinite number of particular cats -- disolved
into nothingness." (G 12) Peter Aureolus claims, "everything is individual by virtue of itself and by
nothing else." (ib.) So a theme may also not be a symbol.
Gothic architecture, ultimately, takes nature for its theme, and nature is not necissarily a
symbol. The Gothic architects, obeying the power of abstraction, mimicked the course of nature.
Infinity is one example of this copy. The universe is infinite, as concomitantly God is omnipotent,
yet nature manifests infinity; God is the infinity that transcends our experience. The Gothic
architect expresses the nature of infinity in two ways. First, the 12th century architects began to
consider the use of perspective elevations for their visual expression. Perspective interpretation of
nature was initiated by Giotto and Duccio. In a perspective elevation, a vanishing point manifests
infinity, for "the vanishing point is the projection of the point in which parallels intersect." (G 19)
The use of perspective elevations eventually gave rise to the progressive divisibility or
multiplicity often associated with High Gothic architecture. For this I should choose two examples
to describe: a cluster pier and a spire.
Consider that you are benched, supine -- for there it's impossible to look down -- in the nave
at the Rheims Cathedral. The parallel colonnettes soar above you. At the base, a cluster pier,
cluster of columns, is the widest and begins its assent. One giant column in the center is
circumscribed by four others. At the proportional height, some are topped with a capitol, but this
does not terminate the cluster pier. It continues, though what was four columns is divided into
eighteen smaller columns. Eight assume the rib and arch, ten continue. Then these ten are stopped
at the clerestory. Here they don't devide but a triforium collonette breakes off to crown the nave
arcade. The pier rises more, and when the stained-glass windows appear, the columns divide again
and all break off to form the seamless groin vault and ribs. This division and union is multiplied by
the factor of each cluster pier: 20 just in the east nave. So infinity is manifest by the multiplication
of progressive division. (Picture: Zarnecki 358)
Next, imagine standing in the tower of the Minster Cathedral, in Freiburg. Vaults, ribs and
a spire impend. These shapes are stubornly repeated throughout the building. You see them
everywhere. Then, when you look up, you notice a rosette pattern in the eight facets of the spire.
The base begins with the largest set of rosettes; they are divided into eight parts also. Four
terminate in a quintuple rosette; the other four terminate in a tripartite rosette. In progressive
division, a new set of rosettes begins. They are slightly smaller, as they fit in the tapering facets of
the spire. Again, each rosette is divided into eight parts, then quintuple and tripartite are the eight
parts coterminous. Then another set of rosettes begins, just above the second. These are divided
also. And above the third begins a fourth. And above the fourth begins a fifth. This multiplicity is
repeated innumerably. Each facet vanishes into one conspicuous point; the series of rosettes vanish
similarly. So infinity is manifest by the vanishing point. (Picture: Zarnecki 393)
In conclusion on the aesthetic Gothic image, the artistic end of Gothic architecture is to
create a cathedral that is at once a structural system, the ornimentation of which is derived from that
structure, and the presence of a them that corresponds to human existence. God is demonstrable
through the architectural structure which is a system based on the exigencies of nature.
The Symbolic Gothic Image
I said before that an image is a symbol with meaning. An image is a likeness to something else.
As a symbol, an image becomes a statement about an idea and represents the meaning of that idea.
A cathedral was designed and expedrienced as a representation of some ultimate reality:
God. The medieval architect was committed to God. He was committed to a truth that, ultimatly,
transcends human experience; God may not be experienced directly. His mission was to create a
likeness of the house of God and a building that would capture the divine spirit.
The image was a revelation. I also mentioned before that Gothic marks a new use of light;
"stained-glass receives its visual existence from an energy that transends it. Light appears as the
active principle." (GC 4) The Gothic architects took this new medium, stained-glass, to represent
his idea of God, for light and God are completely analogous. God initiates the idea, light initiates
the stained-glass. The idea and stained-glass both receive their active principle from a source that
transcends them. Stained-glass, an image of the Gothic style, is a symbol of God.
In fact, this image is so fervently analogous that the means to capture light were integrated
into the very structural system of Gothic architecture. "They are structurally and aesthetically not
openings in the wall to admit light, but transparent walls." (GC 4)
Another source of symbolism is the idea of infinity. The nature of infinity is also inchoate,
so it seems. To contend my previous claim, how on earth can a finite example even approximate
the idea of infinity? It can't. So our idea of infinity is the nearest approximation. The Gothic nave
produces a sense of this idea, for the interior induces infinity by submerging the viewer into
seemingly unending variety and multiplication, but to the effect that the sense is no longer
structural but of the limitlessness of God's creation. The viewer seemingly submerges "his being in
the boundlessness of the Creator Himself. (G 19)
"interiors induce a sence of infinity by making the beholder aware of the unending variety and limitlessness of God's
creation, the Andachtsbilder induced a sense of infinity by permitting the beholder to submerge his being in the
boundlessness of the Creator Himself. (G 19)
image is a symbol with meaning. The image becomes a statement about some idea and represents
the meaning of that idea.
As I said before, an image is a symbol with meaning.
Fait > Reason
light?
Eternity
A shift in emphasis marks a new mode of thought.
The medieval period marks a decrease of confidence in the synthetic power of reason. One
sentiment expressed that logic could be especially useful when entered then left for the purpose of
inquiry. Logic is no longer the universal weapon. Logic's validity depends upon the way in which
it is employed. (Eco 262)
Medieval scholastics sought to settle the conflict between faith and reason. (G 4) But to replace
the de-emphasized
Symbol: something that stands for something else.
Image: A likeness or imitation of a thing.
A shift in emphasis is inherently dangerous becaused we know how God decreed things.
Architecture is transformed into a statement about our own values. Aesthetic draws attention to
values.
The first enemy of aesthetic if meaning. (Calasso 241)
The symbol appears as an image that is also something esle. The aesthetic appears in a figure that
is like many others. Korai: what imposes itself is a presense, as if of someone we don't know. And
one doesn't think immediately of any meaning, but of what appears to the eye.
- before conveying any meaning it wishes only to attract our eye and install itself there.
- every recognition is an awareness of form; it is aesthetic, foremost.
The city could only exist where the statue was, as a language only exists where its poet it. (C 338)
In the maximum pointlessness lies the maximum splendor. And the real never shines so brightly as
when its reality is duplicated...gods and men fighting... (C 340)
They obeyed the power of abstraction and at the same time mimicked the couse of nature. (C 353)
Helen is the power of the phantom, the simulacrum, and the simulacrum is that place where
absence is sovereign. (C123)
The gentle animation of west facade of Chartres from Romanesque reflects renewal of an interest
of a formerly dormant psychology. This psychology is based on St. Augustine's dichotomy
between the "breath of life" and the "dust of earth". (G 6)
A plant was thought to exist as a plant an not as the copy of an idea of a plant. (God is
demonstrable rather than a priori)
A decreese of confidence in the supremely synthetic power of reaon...
both mysticism an dnominalism cut the tie between reason and faith. Both abolished the boarder
line between finite and infinite. (G 14) So perspective gave visual expression to the concept of the
infinite: the vanishing point is the projection of the point in which paralles intersect. (G17)
Perspective interpretation - Giotto and Duccio.
Interiors induce a sence of infinity by making the beholder aware of the unending variety and
limitlessness of Gods creation, and Andachtsbilder induced a sence of infinty by permitting the
beholder to submerge his being in the boundlessnesss of the Creator Himself. (G 19)
MANIFESTATIO: elucidation of faith by reason. (G 30)
The composition of a High Gothic portal tends to be subject to a strict and fairly standardized
scheme which, in imposing order upon the formal arangement, simultaneously clarifies the
narrative content. (G 39)
For us, the symbol is an image that invests physical reality with potential meaning. For medieval
man, the physical world as we understand it has noreality except as a symbol.
The image was a revalation. The modern artist is free to create; wwe demand of him only that he is
true to himself. The medieval artist was commited to a truth that transended human existance.
Architecture was designed aand experienced as a representation of an ultimate reality.
progressive divisibility or multiplicity
The image embodies a moral, allegorical or analogical truth: the idea. It remains true as the idea
embodied by the image is true. Why is an idea true? The very thought is a positive affirmation, a
fact. awk.
An image is the sign of an idea. But an "idea is also a sign of things" (but what?) - analogous to the
image. From the image may be constructed, if not the impressing body, then the idea that others
had of it that caused such an impression. So an idea makes an impression: the image. But is the
idea the end - is it enough - for what impresses an idea? Is it not just another image? Don't we
derive inspiration and ideas from images? And should we not be more concerned with our ideas
than with the images they produce? William - "No, because true learning must not be content with
ideas, which are, in fact, signs, but must discover things in their INDIVIDUAL TRUTH." (What,
again, is the individual truth? The image? The idea? Experience?) Adso - "Then I can always and
only speak of something that speaks to me of something else, and so on. But the FINAL
SOMETHING, the true one - does that never exist?" William - "Perhaps...one of these days you
will encounter it, however black and ugly it may be."
This unnamable, ineffable, individual truth - the origin of all images and ideas - is both the rose
and the girl. It is both the image and the idea embodied by the image: the Unicorn and Virtue. But
it is neither of these things also. For they are simply an approximation - a circular allegorical
account - of this property of knowledge that we seek.
Adso - "I burst shamefully into sobs and fled to my cell, where all through the night I chewed my
pallet and moaned helplessly, FOR I WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED - as they did in the romances
of chivalry I had read with my companions at Melk - TO LAMENT AND CALL OUT THE
BELOVED'S NAME."
For there is no name of this beloved, this individual truth, this final something: this first principle of
experience. If there were, it would become simultaneously an idea and an image, thus loosing its
power (the rose and the girl, the Unicorn and Virtue, all powerless in themselves). If the final
something were named, it would be a part of this incessant circumlocution. It would be trapped in
the "revolution of ages..., continuous and sublime recapitulation" of human experience
[knowledge?]; BUT the "PROPERTY of knowledge, AS A DIVINE THING, is that it is complete
and has been defined since the beginning, in the perfection of the Word which expresses itself to
itself." AND this very property of divine knowledge is the perfected Word, the individual truth, the
FINAL SOMETHING that we seek and can't name.
Ironic that the 'final something' finds itself in both the beginning and the end with respect to human
experience but is simply COMPLETE with respect to divine knowledge.
Jorge is right, progress is a myth; human experience is circular: the idea and the image flow in and
out of each other, while each seeks the origin of the other. The image is at once the idea and the
idea is at once the image, yet they are lacking a beginning, this final something: the perfection of
the Word which expresses itself to itself (and nothing more). Adso's beloved is the ineffable Word
- that which creates all other images and ideas (and all other words). It is impossible for Adso to
name his beloved because he can't recognize it. He can only recognize the signs that it makes:
images and ideas.
In the beginning was the Word, and in the end was the Word, in the same place: non in
commotione.
stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.
THE ORIGINAL ROSE STANDS APART FROM ITS NAME; WE HOLD (ONLY) THE BARE
NAME.
And on my translation I begin to argue. Here is another tranlation:
"The former rose remains only as a name, all that is left for us are simple names."
(http://www.argyroneta.com/eco/exchange/messages/761.html)
offered by Alex on the Eco Exchange. He is wrong. The 'former rose', or properly ORIGINAL
ROSE, is the Word. But the Word is ineffable, right? So it can't remain only as a name, for it has
no name. It MUST stand apart from the name; it must stand apart from the circular system of
images and ideas - names. (And, in fact, 'nomine' stands in the ablative case; one major function of
the ablative case is ablative of separation. Clearly this is the semantic of choice.) Eco himself
claims, " I remember that Abelard used the example of the sentence "Nulla rosa est" [THE ROSE
IS NOTHING] to demonstrate how language can speak of both the nonexistent and the destroyed.
And having said this, I leave the reader to arrive at his own conclusions."
Yes, language can speak of both the nonexistent and the destroyed, or rather, language can speak
ABOUT ideas that do not exist as a fact, ideas that seem to be nothing more than ideas. Language
is limited to speaking OF or ABOUT things. It can only name its own ideas and the images created
by those ideas. In other words, language can only speak of itself periphrastically. It may not name
the Word, that ineffable truth, the origin of both images, ideas and words. And this is why the
original rose stands apart from its name. We have only images, ideas and names (or words - like
'rose'), but the original rose (that perfect rose, final rose and individual truth), which is analogous to
the Word, speaks itself to itself only. The name 'rose' is an idea of an image. The real rose lies
elsewhere: it is the property of divine knowledge.
Ex Biblio
Zarnecki, George ARt of the Medieval World: Architecture, Scultpture, Painting, The Sacred Arts.
Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., and Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York 1975