THIS IS SO WRONG AND MISLEADING. PLEASE TAKE IT DOWN.
Let me echo Larry Kuipers; For the sake of all who might view this in ignorance, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT! In fact you must go further than that: TAKE THIS FRIGGING STUPID MISINFORMED VIDEO DOWN.
What is the problem? 1. You start with a statement about how the Gothic style emerged in the cathedrals of France and you illustrate the statement
WITH AN IMAGE OF A CHURCH FACADE BEGUN IN THE RENAISSANCE -- 1610---
AND WITH NOT A SINGLE GOTHIC FEATURE
This Church has THREE CLASSICAL PEDIMENTS
If you cannot SEE that this is not Gothic, then DO NOT attempt to educate any other person.
LOOK!!! LOOK!!! AND LOOK AGAIN at what you are talking about.
NEXT:
Don't waffle on about Romanesque architecture as being "highly esteemed imitations of the Roman style". It ISN'T Romanesque architecture is what it is. It doesn't "imitate" the Roman, It simply follows the decline of the Roman Empire. It wasn't named Romanesque until th 19th century, and that was simply to separate it from Gothic, with a word that attempted to explain that the round arches had continued out of the Ancient Roman tradition.
Don't confused Vasari's comments about the art of PAINTING with architecture. Stick to architecture.
Don't refer to Gothic as evolving in Franc and then jump immediately to one of the finest LATE Gothic ENGLISH churches. The building does not illustrate your comment.
The statement about early criticism, and Gothic architecture continuing to influence design is ridiculous when you team it with Notre Dame. Can't you get it into your head that Vasari's criticism was POST GOTHIC/RENAISSANCE? And when the REVIVAL of Gothic occurred, after a GAP of the Renaissance and Baroque (1400- 1800) or (1500-1800) or (1600-1750) depending on which country we are refering to. the Gothic was REVIVED as suitable for church architecture.
Gothic style did not DRAW INSPIRATION from an earlier style called Romanesque. Romanesque GREW SLOWLY into Gothic, with emerging technologies.
Your statement that Romanesque cathedrals had the same spaciousness as Gothic is ridiculous when the illustration you have chosen is the Italian polychrome building San Miniato al Monte. This building has NOTHING to do with the development of . Gothic, or the type of internal space that Gothic achieved/
DON'T USE THE WORD CATHEDRAL WHEN YOU MEAN "CHURCH". It is only a "cathedral" if it IS ACTUALLY a CATHEDRAL. A "cathedral" houses the throne of a bishop and has an ORGANISATIONAL role in an area known as a "diocese"
You show the EAST end of a building (with NO FACADE< NO DOORS< NO PORTICO) and you compare it with the WEST FRONT i.e. facade (possibly the most famous and typical of all Gothic facades)
Romanesque cathedrals were NOT wide. If you see the development of early Romanesque to full Romanesque, to early Gothic to Late Gothic then you MIGHT expect that the buildings got progressively taller.. BUT in fact, some Romanesque interiors are very tall indeed, In England one of the tallest interiors in the country is Romanesque (otherwise called Norman in England) In FRANCE and Western Germany, some Gothic architects strove for extreme height, but most did not. These screen, where they exist, are generally GOTHIC.
Your Romanesque plan is a hypothetical plan which never was built and is hard to interpret. A glance at the Gothic plan will will inform you (SHOULD inform you through your eyes) that Gothic interiors were also divided into areas. The division is dependent on the purpose of the building. A church that served a monastery AND a parish was generally divided by a screen. NOTE: "screen" not "wall" The interior of the building from Nave to chancel was one continuous space, and the screen were lower, generally wood, and often openwork. It could be more solid in a monastery, but NOT floor to ceiling.
Gothic Cathedrals COULD be flooded with light, but if they had stained glass, then they were NOT. The light that entered the building was filtered and coloured, a bit like being under water. An early Romanesque building without stained glass would be much lighter, even if the windows were quite small.
Your choice of a ribbed vault image is a very late vault, and is a poor illustration of what ribbed vaults actually achieved structurally. Likewise, I cannot imagine why, with thousands of images on Wikimedia Commons to choose from, you chose an image of a traceried window to defined "pointed arch". There is too much in this picture to distract and confuse.
It really is abosolutely frigging hilarious that you make the statement "Gothic Cathedrals were breathtakingly tall, and team it with a building that IS ROMANESQE. Why can't you SEEEE that every arch is round-topped? .
Saint Denis. What do you mean "removal of dividing walls"? This is nonsense!
The "innovative head piece was not all the abbey was famous for" and THEN you mention Suger, as if HE CAME ALONG LATER. SUGER WAS RESPONSIBLE for the "innovative headpiece" you twat!
Chartres, which you show, did not "pop up" and was well under way when Suger was doing his innovative stuff. Good grief! you have teamed my photograph of curvilinear tracery at Limoges with what you term "naturalistic style".
Those prominences on Notre Dame Cathedral are called by the ordinary word TOWERS. They are NOT spires. The supports are not "transformed into Gothic figures. The figures are ornament, not structure.
Books of the hours. Much of this is nonsense. You seem to have no understanding about when printing became common in Europe. You speal about the Limbourg Brothers Book of Hours as if it was unusual at a time when books were generally printed. This is not the case. The Limbourgs were born in the late 1300s and all died in 1416, along with the Duke du Berry who commissioned them. At that time PAPER WAS RARE and, consequently, book printing was almost non-existent. Moreover, when the first little prayer books were printed, on paper, in the 1400s, the art of illumination was still favoured by any wealthy person wanting a beautiful prayer book or Bible. It was not until the 1500s that printed books became more readily available and people could own a printed library.
NOTE: if you do not understand EXACTLY what 14th century means, then don't use the term at all. It is safer to say 1400s, or 1500s than to say 14th century when you mean 1400s which is the fifteenth century.
Your statement about the importance of architecture and natural themes into Renaissance art, thereby relating it to the Gothic id ridiculouse, particularly when illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper.
And the 19th or 20th century figures shown at the enddon't illustrate either Gothic, or excellt Gothic Revival.
Please, I implore you, take this down and LEARN HOW TO INTERPRET WHAT YOU SEE.
whats the name of the music that begins towards the end of the video?
For chrissake get your fucking facts right! Notre Dame Cathedral was begun in 1163, not 1211 and the west towers are 69 meters (226 feet) not 105 meters tall.