Mabuse
Readers of this forum might find this article interesting
http://media.www.thelaf.com/media/s.../Ae/Renaissance.Canon.Exclusive-3978218.shtml
http://media.www.thelaf.com/media/s.../Ae/Renaissance.Canon.Exclusive-3978218.shtml
My bold. This is what I have always belived Plus, during those times and those places artistic expressions did include Christian (catholic) iconography.foolish said:Thank you for posting this article. I believe we can learn from Ahl's quote: "Banners, tarot cards and frescos were a few of the many mediums artists used for their paintings. "[They] expressed political, historical and familiar ideology." This should tell us that these various sources of art, such as the tarot, were the allegorical expression for the political, historical and spiritual views of the artists of the time - whoever they may have been and whatever their ideological positions were - and not simply the redundant expression of orthodox Christian art. If the artists held unorthodox views or had other historical information to present, then we would expect that the symboloy in the cards would have meaning beyond their traditional biblical references. Since not everyone agreed on a single theology, why shouldn't we expect that the symbolism in the cards would also reflect such diversity - especially if such associations can be made?
foolish said:I have just finished a book by Linda Harris (who has several graduate degrees in Art History), called The Secret Heresy of Hieronymus Bosch, in which she presents detailed explanations of how Bosch's paintings, from the early 16th century, contain iexplicit mages of the artist's Cathar background.
foolish said:The only thing that's obvious to me is that, as in most cases, there are differences of opinion. That's life. It seems like arrogant academics to insist that only you have the real answer to the truth of the matter, and therefore have the right to shut down anyone who dares to differ. We see this in religion, in politics... and even in certain tarot circles. The reality is that Mrs. Harris has her points, which she makes quite well. She interprets most of the images in Bosch's works based on the way they seemingly convey Bogomil-dualistic-Cathar ideas. Is she wrong? I guess that's in the eye of the reader. It seems like art is less absolute in its truth than other things.