The Gothic Form

"Sacred art is not about depicting peoples and events as they actually looked"

Naturalism vs Abstraction

The underlying foundation of the Gothic form is the Iconographic. That is, the Gothic form builds on the Iconographic. The artists of the Medieval period worked in a visual language that was partly received from the Iconographic tradition and partly invented by them to suit the requirements of their work. Over time a set of conventions developed that artists of the Middle Ages more or less adhered to, but as in the Iconographic form, these conventions were more guidelines than rules and we encounter a great deal of deviation within the form. One of those areas in which we see a variety of approaches is the amount of stylization the artists used in their work.

In addressing sacred art we should first of all be clear that we are primarily concerned with liturgical art, that is, the art that would be used to adorn our sacred spaces. This includes not only churches, chapels, oratories, etc., but also missals, sacramentaries, prayerbooks and psalters. One of the hallmarks of sacred art is a degree of stylization that allows us to go beyond the visual image to contemplate the spiritual truth that the image conveys.

In terms of the stylization or abstraction of faces and figures, we are looking at a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum would be a highly representational image such as a portrait of an individual. At the other end of the spectrum would be abstraction to the point of being unintelligible to the casual viewer. But within these two extremes there is a variety of what would be acceptable in sacred art.

The ideal of course would be a balance between the two, equal parts naturalism and abstraction, this would be the center of the spectrum. But moving slightly from the center one way or the other without going to the extreme ends still produces a legitimate interpretation, an image worthy of veneration. Where any particular image falls within the spectrum will rely on a number of factors, such as the skill of the artist, the time in which he worked, and the audience for which the work was intended. In evaluating sacred art we must always consider the context. Who the art was for, that is, who commissioned it, for what purpose, and where the art was to be seen.

It is unfortunate in our modern era that much of the sacred art we see is in museums, removed from its original context. This reduces the art to a mere object, to be admired for its aesthetic qualities with little to no regard for its intended spiritual aspects.

How, then does this tension between naturalism and abstraction play out in the Gothic form?

On the more representational side of the spectrum we might look at the work of Cimabue. Cimabue was a thirteenth century Italian artist. Although heavily influenced by Byzantine iconography, he is credited with breaking from the form and painting figures in a much more naturalistic way. His figures feature more lifelike proportions and shading than the Byzantine prototype.

This naturalistic approach is intended to direct our attention more to the human element of salvation history, to draw us into a more personal meditation. We see the saints and events in a way that allows us to much more easily imagine them as real figures, models and examples for us to follow. If the Gothic form is the art of man on pilgrimage back to God, this more naturalistic rendering speaks to each of us as a pilgrim on the same road that others have travelled before us.

On the other side of the median, the more abstract side, Matthew Paris serves as an excellent example. Matthew Paris was a near contemporary of Cimabue but worked in a much different style. While much, if not all, of his artistic output was confined to manuscripts and therefore had size limitations, we can still see that a “realistic” rendering of faces and figures was not his primary concern.

The more abstract side of our spectrum serves to emphasize the universal rather than the individual. These images allow us to step back, so to speak, and draw from the image a contemplation of the universal dimension.

Both approaches are equally valid. In one form we may see an image of the Blessed Mother with the child Jesus and contemplate what her earthly life was like. The other form may allow us to more easily meditate upon her larger, universal role as Queen of Heaven, and Ark of the New Covenant.

As for the middle, the ideal combination of naturalism and abstraction, there is a wide variety of opinion and so I will leave that discussion for the comments. I would however venture to express the opinion that nearly the entire Gothic form represents the search for that balance. If we lean too far in one direction we get portraits that distract us. Rather than contemplating the mystery of the word made flesh we may get caught up in thinking that Jesus looks an awful lot like an uncle we know. If we lean too far in the other direction we may no longer be able to tell what the image is trying to convey in the first place. Sacred art is not about depicting peoples and events as they actually looked. Sacred art is an arrangement of symbolic representations intended to draw the viewer beyond the image and turn hearts and minds to God.

This variety of style within the form is perhaps one of the larger obstacles to overcome in revitalizing the Gothic form as a living tradition. Where do we start? I believe the earlier iteration of the Gothic that is found primarily in illuminated manuscripts would be the best place. There is more naturalization in the proportions of figures, and the surrounding world, but the abstraction of facial features remains. This was perhaps the Gothic artist’s attempt to balance the two extremes. Nor was this form confined to the books of the wealthy. Several churches have been found dating back to the 13th century with the remains of murals or frescoes in this style.

If we take 13th century illuminated manuscripts as our starting point, then we have beautiful models to follow in the Rheinau, Winchester, Westminster and St. Albans psalters.

This is meant as an introduction to an ongoing discussion. Artistic conventions in sacred art are more or less a consensus between artists and the Church over what works and what does not. I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Pax Vobiscum

Lawrence Klimecki, MSA, is a deacon in the Diocese of Sacramento. He is a public speaker, writer, and artist, reflecting on the intersection of art and faith and the spiritual “hero’s journey” that is part of every person’s life. He maintains a blog at www.DeaconLawrence.org and can be reached at Lawrence@deaconlawrence.com

Lawrence draws on ancient Christian tradition to create new contemporary visions of sacred art. For more information on original art, prints and commissions, Please visit www.DeaconLawrence.org

Purchase fine art prints of Deacon Lawrence’s work here.