30-08-2019, 09:18 PM
We (naturally enough) tend to assume that manuscript work was the main thrust of imagery development, simply because that's our main resource for the era, and we have this mental imagery of monks faithfully copying early generations like some sort of photocopying machine.
Of course it wasn't like that.
People innovated, and they drew their inspiration from their surroundings. Much of the cultural inspiration is now lost to us, whether that be books of secrets, calendars, manuscript jottings, street theatre or garden layout. All we have all the sculptures (which aren't familiar to most lay audiences), paintings and manuscripts, which can now easily be seen online. Arguably, all three were reflectors of culture rather than innovators. People drew their inspiration for innovation from their surroundings, then laid them down in their paintings or manuscripts. We moderns then reverse the process.
It's a trap, people!
Of course it wasn't like that.
People innovated, and they drew their inspiration from their surroundings. Much of the cultural inspiration is now lost to us, whether that be books of secrets, calendars, manuscript jottings, street theatre or garden layout. All we have all the sculptures (which aren't familiar to most lay audiences), paintings and manuscripts, which can now easily be seen online. Arguably, all three were reflectors of culture rather than innovators. People drew their inspiration for innovation from their surroundings, then laid them down in their paintings or manuscripts. We moderns then reverse the process.
It's a trap, people!