DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Goss, Vladimir Peter: The "Croatian Westwork" revisited
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31178#0021
7 7. fk'qwü A
(G yrc^/^J pü/7. Ryv^-'
c/ Cro^ALz Arrf <?<?Ag7W
AL%%/w%y, bjpA.
aspect of the architecture of the Caroltngian period
had little to do with the idea of JG/zo^Ah! As one
writes these words, one is immediately reminded that
similar dichotomy ruies the painting and sculpture of
the Caroltngian period — there are obvious RtwM-MAo
pièces (The Coronation Gospels, The Charlemagne
from Metz), but even within the art of the Palatine
School, the renovational models almost immediately
give way to a more structured, more planar, and more
décorative solutions. Is it an accident that to the place
with the probably hrst monumental Carolingian west-
work church, St. Riquier at Centula, are also linked
the Centula Gospels? Should we, therefore, now turn
our contention about what is Carolingian and what
is not upside down? Lobbeday has demonstrated
that the westwork had no identifiable antécédent.
The same may be said of the Romanesque towers
and as foreign to Classical architecture as
the Carolingian A/nEt. I would dare postuláte that
the "inteüectuals" may hâve had their visions of the
1950, p. 227-291, m particular pp. 227,253-255,259-274; and
FUCHS, A.: Zum Problem der Westwerke. In:
wyj 0//P7MJYA? XwM/. Eds. A. ALFÖLDI et al. Wiesbaden
1957, pp. 109-127. The old classic - EFFMANN, W:
Münster 1912 - is still recommended reading, especially in
terms of Effmann's discussion of the defensive functions
past, but as soon as this visions turned into reality,
the "people" did their best to redirect them toward
what the "people" knew best: their own artistic "bar-
barian" tradition, although already "contaminated"
by Carolingian or some other "renovational" trendA
Once that "contaminated" art, bringing together both
the classical and the barbarian tradition, assumed a
monumental scale within a monumental architectural
framework, the Romanesque would emerge from the
Pre-Romanesque.
As just stated above, Lobbeday has pointed
out that we really do not know the source of the
Carolingian A/rEy that marvelous invention which
turned the boring, low-lying Early Christian basilica
into an exciting asset to the landscape, profoundly
changing its expressive content in the process. By
proposing a very useful distinction between a proper
westwork and a "Westbau", Lobbeday has reminded
us that western annexes existed along the façades of
Christian churches from a much earlier period. Only,
of the westwork. Anothet important study on the defensive
function is STENGEL, E. E.: Übet Ursprung, Zweck und
Bedeutung der Karolingischen Westwerke. In:
Ed. U. SCHEIL. Greiswlad 1956, pp. 283-311. For
some more recent suggestions, see LOBBEDAY 2002 (see
in note 28).
15
(G yrc^/^J pü/7. Ryv^-'
c/ Cro^ALz Arrf <?<?Ag7W
AL%%/w%y, bjpA.
aspect of the architecture of the Caroltngian period
had little to do with the idea of JG/zo^Ah! As one
writes these words, one is immediately reminded that
similar dichotomy ruies the painting and sculpture of
the Caroltngian period — there are obvious RtwM-MAo
pièces (The Coronation Gospels, The Charlemagne
from Metz), but even within the art of the Palatine
School, the renovational models almost immediately
give way to a more structured, more planar, and more
décorative solutions. Is it an accident that to the place
with the probably hrst monumental Carolingian west-
work church, St. Riquier at Centula, are also linked
the Centula Gospels? Should we, therefore, now turn
our contention about what is Carolingian and what
is not upside down? Lobbeday has demonstrated
that the westwork had no identifiable antécédent.
The same may be said of the Romanesque towers
and as foreign to Classical architecture as
the Carolingian A/nEt. I would dare postuláte that
the "inteüectuals" may hâve had their visions of the
1950, p. 227-291, m particular pp. 227,253-255,259-274; and
FUCHS, A.: Zum Problem der Westwerke. In:
wyj 0//P7MJYA? XwM/. Eds. A. ALFÖLDI et al. Wiesbaden
1957, pp. 109-127. The old classic - EFFMANN, W:
Münster 1912 - is still recommended reading, especially in
terms of Effmann's discussion of the defensive functions
past, but as soon as this visions turned into reality,
the "people" did their best to redirect them toward
what the "people" knew best: their own artistic "bar-
barian" tradition, although already "contaminated"
by Carolingian or some other "renovational" trendA
Once that "contaminated" art, bringing together both
the classical and the barbarian tradition, assumed a
monumental scale within a monumental architectural
framework, the Romanesque would emerge from the
Pre-Romanesque.
As just stated above, Lobbeday has pointed
out that we really do not know the source of the
Carolingian A/rEy that marvelous invention which
turned the boring, low-lying Early Christian basilica
into an exciting asset to the landscape, profoundly
changing its expressive content in the process. By
proposing a very useful distinction between a proper
westwork and a "Westbau", Lobbeday has reminded
us that western annexes existed along the façades of
Christian churches from a much earlier period. Only,
of the westwork. Anothet important study on the defensive
function is STENGEL, E. E.: Übet Ursprung, Zweck und
Bedeutung der Karolingischen Westwerke. In:
Ed. U. SCHEIL. Greiswlad 1956, pp. 283-311. For
some more recent suggestions, see LOBBEDAY 2002 (see
in note 28).
15