- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,080
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Our Art History class moved into Early Christan art today and I saw something rather unusual.
Early Christan/Byzatine art has a very heavy influence from indigenous pagan beliefs simply because the people making the art had the artistic vocabulary of pagans but they were now expressing Christian beliefs.
Once the professor presented this though, several students took grave exception to this. Several of them were older individuals, people you'd think would have a little more world-wisdom. They protested profusely that art from that era would have these influences because, ostensibly, putting them with figures such as Christ would basically be heresy so they wouldn't have done it.
Why do you think certain people take such horror in the idea that art from that period and beyond have been influenced by what came before it?
Early Christan/Byzatine art has a very heavy influence from indigenous pagan beliefs simply because the people making the art had the artistic vocabulary of pagans but they were now expressing Christian beliefs.
Once the professor presented this though, several students took grave exception to this. Several of them were older individuals, people you'd think would have a little more world-wisdom. They protested profusely that art from that era would have these influences because, ostensibly, putting them with figures such as Christ would basically be heresy so they wouldn't have done it.
Why do you think certain people take such horror in the idea that art from that period and beyond have been influenced by what came before it?