Here is my Week 6 Forum assignment for Magic in the Middle Ages. This is our last week, and this question received quite a bit of response, not the least of which was that the question itself was rather confusing. As such, I edited it for my own understanding and the clarity of the other students. To be fair, the instructors of the course do not speak English as their main language. Nevertheless, I took a different approach to answering the question.

 

The description of “sumptuary arts” is quite contemporary. Throughout the History of Art, those artistic expressions have been considered a minor category, compared to Architecture, Sculpture and Painting. They have even received a pejorative name: “Minor Arts”. Currently, to employ a more suitable word according to the value deserved for those pieces is under discussion. For Hanns Swarzenski, of “Monuments of Romanesque Art” The Art of Church Treasures in North Western Europe, Londres, 1967, pp. 14: “The better denomination for this kind of art would be the Art of Church Treasuries.” Other researchers like Concepción Fernández Villami, from “Las Artes Aplicadas”, Madrid, 1975, for instance, considers that it would be better to use “applied arts” because this definition includes the determinants of utility and beauty, two of the distinctive features of these kinds of artistic expressions. 

Which definition suits better with your opinion and why? Answer the question in around 100 words showing your understanding of the importance of those artistic manifestations.

 

I choose neither. I think a better term would be “Church Antiquities”. These relics served the purpose of bringing people into the churches and were coveted for their ornate ornamentation. However, this does not make them “art”. Their purpose was in their economic value, and the “power” they possessed by their contents became secondary. There are important relics in cultures other than Europe in the Middle Ages. For example, relics of Egypt were also thought to have powerful, magical qualities and were buried within the chambers of the dead to help them cross over. Why should these particular artifacts be denoted any differently than antiquities of Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome or Ancient Egypt or numerous other civilizations? Those civilizations viewed their artifacts with reverence, as well. Some of the relics of Europe in the Middle Ages may be very artistic in nature, but certainly not all of them. Art is subjective, but it is also produced to form a connection between the artist and the audience through the art itself, not the supposed magical qualities it possesses. Some, if not most, of these artifacts were created for rather deceptive reasons i.e. relics were split into smaller and smaller pieces to have more available for all the churches who sought them to increase their congregations. It seems inaccurate to compare these items with true artistic pieces when both were present during this time. Therefore, “Church Antiquities” is the least misleading of all the terms suggested, and if a piece is worthy of artistic merit, it should be regarded separately and on its own terms from these “magical” relics. The terminology is not the question to debate, but rather the variable qualities of the relics in the Middle Ages.