Talk:Medieval art

Medieval art Classifications

I recently added the outline of the 9 main movements, the regional art, the art genres, the art types. The source for this was the Index of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (1989), the 13 volume encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer). Each of the links corosponds roughly to an article in the Encyclopedia. It is one way professional medievalists break down the topic of "medieval art". There are many more lesser topics not touched on but these are the major "fault lines".

Well I'm not an art historian of course, but aren't some of these a little too specific? I mean, Comnenan and Palaeologan art, for example, could just be covered under "Byzantine art" in general, couldn't they? And I still think it's just called "Crusader art" rather than "Crusader states art", but oh well. Adam Bishop 06:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's a work in progress, I wanted to get it all down and then see how it evolves. If nothing else these links would be redirects because they are all terms that are in common use (at least among art specialists). There are two: Crusade art, and Crusader state art. One deals with art related to the Crusades, which appeared all over western europe, as a genre. The other deals with the art produces in the crusader states, as a regional art. Stbalbach 15:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the Crusade art more closely, you are right, it is just Crusader art .. the index has it separated but its basically the same material. Stbalbach 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medieval art by artist?

The heading reads "Medieval art by region, type and artist". Yet, if you scroll down, the "artist" section is replaced by "genre". Which is it really? I dont know how knows?

Anti-Semitism in Medieval Christian Art

This Wikipedia article lacks a section on Anti-Semitism in Medieval Christian Art. So far, this page does not have any information about the topic of anti-Jewish representation in the art from this time period. Using Debra Higgs Stricklands’s book Saracens, Demons, and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), I will create a section that both contextualizes and gives examples of what anti-Semitism in Medieval Christian art looked like. For example, Strickland explains that the anti-Semitism that Jews faced during this time period was due to the fact that Jews were different from Christians both culturally and religiously. One way in which this hatred manifested itself was through the creation of anti-Semitic art, which served the purpose of discrediting both Jews and their religious beliefs. Anti-Semitic art from this time period can be split into three categories: art that focused on physical descriptions, art that featured signs of damnation, and art that depicted Jews as monsters. I will give examples and context to these categories. For instance, in these images Jews were often depicted wearing pointed hats and long beards, simply meant as a derogatory symbol, to separate Christians from Jews. Additionally, Jews were also depicted in scenes that showed them crucifying Christ, which goes back to the false Christian belief that the Jews themselves were responsible for murdering Christ. Finally, since Jews were seen as outsiders by society due to their different dress and means of worship, social tension manifested itself into the belief that Jews were barbarians, eventually evolving into the idea that they were monsters. Some of the art from this time period morphs these ideas, combining the stereotypical Jewish beard and pointed hat imagery with that of monsters, creating art that made Jews synonymous with monsters. During the Medieval period, anti-Semitic art was created by Christians as a manifestation of their hatred for Jews, as a means of propaganda to spread this message of anti-Semitism further into society.

If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Brooke1995 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't object but I think you would have to note the timeline also - this time period covered in this article is from the 5th century to the 15th century, so you should consider also Lipton and Bernhard Blumenkranz (who is cited by Strickland and Lipton) - it would be stronger to look through the major sources and check to see if the additions are WP:DUE, which if the sources are in agreement they most likely are. For example, Lipton argues that the use of the "Jewish hat" is not overtly anti-Jewish - she says it was more associated with the concept of "wise men from the East" and that the "blindness of Jews" contrasted with the "sight" of Christ was not intended to be anti-semitic but self-reflection but that contemporary texts suggest Jews were increasingly viewed as enemies of Christ - I am not going to summarize her entire discussion, but I think your proposal above needs some work ie "simply meant as a derogatory symbol" etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Velella, I've worked on the section some - can you give me some feedback? I'm a bit puzzled on the "blindingly obvious" claim that you used for the student's work. While yes, to many this would seem to be fairly obvious it's something that may not be to all readers and this is an area of medieval art that has received a lot of coverage. I've expanded the coverage in the section with an addition six sources and would've added more except that much of this is hidden behind academic and publisher paywalls. Sara Lipton has written on this topic very extensively and the topic has even made its way into the news media. As far as the prejudice heading and first sentence, that was more because I envisioned the section being expanded with sections on prejudiced depictions of other religions and cultures in medieval art. Basically, a "build it and they will come" sort of deal since there has to be more -isms in medieval art than just antisemitism and anti-Judaism. Also pinging Seraphim System for some feedback. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for this insertion in the thread, but out-placing it would make little sense. In the knowledge that this is a student's work, I will not intervene until a reasonable time has passed. I note also that other editors have also been involved, and they are probably more knowledgeable in this field than I am. I am, however, slightly perplexed to see little discussion of political influences throughout this article. All, or almost all art at this time was commissioned by a patron or or the relevant religious sponsor and all such art reflected the beliefs, prejudices, and political alliances of those paying for the work. This is the sense that prejudice is blindingly obvious. Nothing in the western world was produced that doesn't have a back story of prejudice, so maybe you are on the right lines but need to amplify the content. I am, however, pleased to note that we do not have any more aberrant headings! Best of luck  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And we don't have anything on anti-women, pagans, etc etc. The sections are not very well written, and use noticeably poorer sources than Ecclesia and Synagoga and Jewish hat, and no doubt other relevant articles. As these articles show, anti-semitism in medieval art is, depending on period, region and context, a relatively minor aspect of the period, far less prominent than the very standard favourable treatment of Jewish biblical figures (there's much more of this in the MA than from the Renaissance onwards), which the section doesn't mention at all. As it is the section is certainly WP:UNDUE. A more balanced separate article on Jews in medieval art might be better, with a short summary here. This article is a hugely compressed overview, & this unbalances it. The stuff the article talks about only really comes from the Romanesque & Gothic periods in the Western Church, only a small part of the article (2 of the 8 period sections). I'd failed to notice Brooke1995's first post above - my bad. It was right to do it, & some comments then might have helped steer this in a better direction. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod's comment, and I think the current content is a poor representation of the content of Lipton's book. I explained above, but she goes into a lot more detail, and cherrypicking the source has made this WP:UNDUE, unbalanced etc Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• For example the timeline is a bit more nuanced then "between the 5th and 15th centuries" - I think this subject needs more detail to be balanced, and that it can not be about prejudice, but should be about the full history of representation of Jews in the art of this period. Most sources I can find for "supersessionism" are from sources like "Delegitimizing Israel" that are about modern political issues. This article is sourced entirely to high-quality academic sources, and I don't think Jpost is appropriate. I am searching through Questia and JSTOR now, will let you know what I find. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked two books on Questia Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen published by OUP, and Judaism and Christian Art: Aesthetic Anxieties from the Catacombs to Colonialism published by Upenn Press, what they say about Synagoga and Ecclesia (and replacement theology):

• Vague discussion of replacement theology, but comparing it to Jewish works that did the same thing in honoring their martyrs ("the blood of true martyrs remains that of Jews, not of Jesus and his followers") - in an article about Jews in Medieval Art we would have to discuss both.
• Medieval art rarely depicted the Jews as Jesus' killers
• "Synagoga...embodied Israel of the flesh, who had rejected Jesus and his offer of salvation. Ecclesia embodied the new Israel of spirit"
• "(Synagoga) allows the Christian viewer of the Crucifixion to understand where the Church has come from and where it is going. She places the moment of Christ's death within the broader, more meaningful context of salvation history..."
• Synagoga at the foot of the Cross and Augustine's Jewish blind man standing before the mirror: "Precisely because they do not see the truth, they attest to the replacement of the old law of Moses by the new covenant of God's grace, the synagogue of the Church"
• "As time wore on concord and parity in the portrayal of Synagoga and Ecclesia gave way to discord and disparagement. Synagoga becomes visibly older, less attractive, more poorly dressed then Ecclesia...the tablets of the Law seem to fall out of her hands...newer more belligerent portrayals signaled growing acceptance of a different approach"
• Regarding replacement theology there are different forms, not all considered anti-semitic ("replacement theology and supersessionism are generally not theological systems consciously advanced by theologians but are more often terms coined by opponents ... theology of replacement has been implicit in most theological systems ...") - none of the sources ties the increasing hostility in the depictions to theology - the theological depiction is there from the start, but the portrayal grows more negative over time like making Synagoga look ugly (See above quote) - I think going beyond what the sources say would be WP:SYNTH - "

There's a handy description of the progress of the image here, from Rose, Christine, "The Jewish Mother-in-law; Synagoga and the Man of Law's Tale", in Delany, Sheila (ed), Chaucer and the Jews : Sources, Contexts, Meanings, 2002, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-93882-1, ISBN 978-0-415-93882-2. This dates (following Schiller) the change of attitude to about 1100, as do other sources at Ecclesia and Synagoga. The Rowe source there has a plausible explanation for the timing. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Malformed refs

Note that 2 refs - currently 46 & 49 are not set up correctly. Both to Strickland I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible Addition to the Prejudice Section

I think that there should possibly be an additional section added to the page specifically about the depictions of Jews in art. I think that there should be more references made to Saracens, Demons, and Jews by Debra Higgs Strickland so that you can give more specific examples of why Jews were targeted in medieval art. I think that it would give more context and allow for a better understanding of why Jews were villainized rather than just discussing that they were displayed negatively.

If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page Hannahmaemorris (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There already is a large section on this fashionable topic, that is arguably already too long per WP:UNDUE. Perhaps you didn't read that far. Though it is (with women's issues) what mainly seems to interest undergraduate students these days, this was not actually a very important aspect of medieval art, & in a hugely summarized article does not need much coverage. What we could do with is a more detailed stand-alone article on the subject - it would be better to write that. See 2 sections up also. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)