This is the interior of the oldest remaining part of the château was built at the start of the 13th century to hold the Estates General, where the three "estates," the clergy (1), the nobility (2), and everyone else (3) would get together to conference on hot-button issues.
Louis XII added on to the original structures starting in 1500. By looking at the dormer windows with their ornate, very vertical lines, we can tell that this is late Gothic style.
Only 15 years later, François I's addition to the Blois castle is definitely a break from Gothic architecture. Welcome to the Renaissance, and, seriously, check out that staircase! Nice.
What's most intriguing to me about the Renaissance architecture is their use and twisting of medieval models and symbols. For example:
1. The coquille de Saint-Jacques, or the oyster shell, a symbol of pilgrimages and piety in the medieval times, is reworked on the Renaissance facade of Blois to be the symbol of Venus, who was born in (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) an oyster shell. Think Botticelli's Birth of Venus.
The difference between the Catholic and pagan symbols? The Saint James oyster is convex, and the Venus oyster is concave.
2. These two images:
The first is from the Chartres cathedral, the second from the Renaissance facade at Blois. What's similar? The standing, carved figures with, if you look closely enough, small carved cities above their heads. In the first photo, the six standing figures are saints (actually, apostles to be more specific). The little carved cities over their heads represent the "mansions prepared for them in heaven." In the second, however, the figures are pagan--from Greek mythology, and the carved cities over their heads are topped by Greek temples. I was really struck by this--framing standing statues in this rather specific styles was, I had previously thought, restricted to religious representations of saints. Guess I was wrong!
What does this lead me to? Well, in humanities and in history classes, I've always talked about the Renaissance as a rejection of medieval "darkness" for the splendid wisdom of Antiquity. I think, based on these examples, that such an analysis is not entirely accurate. I don't want to pull the rug out from under centuries of scholars far brighter than I, but at least Renaissance architecture does seem marked in particular ways by not only the models of Antiquity, but by the models of the Middle Ages. In these two specific cases, the Renaissance has re-worked a medieval model with Antiquity in mind... or perhaps vice versa. All the same, to me, these are proofs that there's no such thing as a "clean slate" when it comes to art, architecture, literature, history, etc. You're always going to be plagued by the models of the past, whether consciously or not!
In any case, after the Renaissance period, Blois was inherited by Gaston d'Orléans who wanted to redo the château in the then-fashionable Neoclassical style. Unfortunately for him, his funding was cut off before he could finish the additions. If you look closely at the columns, you'll see that there not all carved. Construction was cut off quite in the middle of the project!
But just compare the Neoclassical architecture to that of the Renaissance, the Gothic period, and the earlier Middle Ages. Cool, huh?
The final château of our tour through the Loire Valley was Chambord, but after all that rambling, all I have the stamina to put up are pictures. Take a gander: We think the roof kind of looked like the architect was really indecisive and didn't know quite what he wanted, so just put up everything he could think of. The result: architectural vomit. But hey, if you can pay for all those towers, be my guest!
No comments:
Post a Comment