Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
IndianZigzags–theIndustrialMonster
23
stylegarden.Ashortconsiderationoftheseexampleswilldemonstratehow
Ruskin’spositionisinkeepingwithahistoricallyrecurringattitudeofaes-
theticcriticism,andinparticularapolitically-motivatedrejectionofvarious
kindsofabstraction.
MostearlyCelticarttooktheformofabstractdecorationbasedongeo-
metricalformslikespirals,knotworksandkeypatterns.Whencontemplating
theinfinitelyknottedpatternsofCelticart,itiseasytonoticethatdynamism
istheirdominantfeature.Celticornamentwasallaboutnon-equilibriumand
motion:itrotated,dancedandturned.ForthisreasonCelticartwasoften
characterisedasabstract,iteratedandunboundedasitrejectedstable,orderly
andstaticdesignsinfavourofchaosandfluctuation.30
TheRomansentirelyrejectedtheabstractiveanddynamiccharacterof
CelticornamenttotheextentthatCelticartalmostceasedtobeproduced
duringthefour-centuryRomanoccupationofBritain.Themostinfluential
factordeterminingRomancriticalviewsonCelticartwasconnectedwiththe
Greek-influencedapproachthatconsideredtheimageofmanasthesourceof
highestartisticcreativity.AccordingtoRomannormsofaesthetics,mostsuc-
cessfulworksofartexploredtheinnerdepthandexternalphysicalappearance
ofthehumanbody.TheRomansfavouredrealism:theirportraitsoffamous
andpowerfulpeoplerejectedtheideallook(sopopularinancientGreekart)
andstrivedtoshoweveryblemishandwartoftheportrayed.
Yet,Celticartwaslookeddownuponnotonlybecauseitwasnotrealist
andanthropocentricorbecauseitusedabstractionandgeometry,butalso
becauseitusedthewrongstyleofgeometry.TheRomansdidusegeometry
too,particularlyintheirarchitecture,whichwasapowerfulaestheticrepre-
sentationoftheRomanimperialpower.Romanarchitecturewassupposedto
besolid,simple,monumental,ostentatiousinscale,unquestionableinauthor-
ityanddeemedeternalinordertobecomethearchitecturalmirrorimageof
theidealsandambitionsoftheRomanEmpire.Accordingly,thegeometryof
Romanarchitecturehadtobepracticalandpoliticallymeaningful:theRo-
manworldwastobecontrolledandrationallyordered.Classicalgeometry
wasthereforeconcrete,rigid,finite,precise,rationallyordered,axiomatic,
andbasedonsimplestaticshapesofcircles,trianglesandrectangles.31The
dynamicfeaturepresentinCelticgeometrycouldnot,then,beadoptedin
theRomanornamentastoRomansthe“dynamic”geometryrepresentedthe
instabilityandirrationalityoftheCelticculture,andthereforereflectedthe
lowerartofaninferior,primitivecivilisation.32
30IanStead,CelticArtbeforetheRomanConquest(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniver-
sityPress,1996),pp.20–25.
31J.M.C.Toynbee,ArtinBritainunderRomans(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,
1964),pp.2–10.
32Toynbee,ArtinBritain,pp.11–15.
