12-02-2018, 01:01 PM
I stand by my comment above, btw
Obviously I cannot respond to Rene's assertion that this is "plainly incorrect" since it is an assertion, unsupported by anything like evidence. I have considered Fr.Theodore Petersen's work, since he had a background of formal studies in medieval iconography, but so little is left of his work, that it cannot be judged as well- or ill-informed.
(I put an effort to avoid terminology that would not be in line with forum policy).
I should have preferred, frankly, a comment more informative and more plainly directed to the issue.
Quote:Apart from some vague observations which were acute enough but undeveloped (such as a couple of John Tiltman's), there was no informed comment on this imagery between 1912 and 1931, when Anne Nill made a note of some offered by Panofsky. Once again there was no explanation in detail for those observations, though that doesn't lessen their importance as the first unforced, informed commentary we have.
Thereafter there appears to have been nothing recorded of any informed observation or comment on the imagery before 2008.
Obviously I cannot respond to Rene's assertion that this is "plainly incorrect" since it is an assertion, unsupported by anything like evidence. I have considered Fr.Theodore Petersen's work, since he had a background of formal studies in medieval iconography, but so little is left of his work, that it cannot be judged as well- or ill-informed.
(I put an effort to avoid terminology that would not be in line with forum policy).
I should have preferred, frankly, a comment more informative and more plainly directed to the issue.