Introduction
French Romanesque architecture has variously been regarded as an outgrowth of the local and foreign artistic experiences that distilled onto the country’s architectural sphere. The active influences of Roman orthodox Christianity, the demands of the monasteries, and the contact with other cultural systems found their representations in these works of architecture.
Features that marked this architecture
One of the singular features that marked these cultural and artistic forces was the replacement of the wooden roofs with the special stone vault (Kostof & Greg, 332). The wooden beam ceiling that was used traditionally was considered structurally inferior. The concerns were that its structural limitations could not guarantee support to the component features that were borrowed from the invading stylistic influences.
The stone barrel vault that was replaced had the effect of making the nave of the building appear broad and massive. The gradual replacement of the wooden beams with the stone vault had the effect of giving the upcoming buildings the requisite finesse of Roman architecture, without compromising on the local cultural preferences. In a way, therefore, France managed to invent a hybrid system of architecture by improving her own traditional artistic peculiarities with selected Roman features.
The influence of pilgrimage art brought deliberate efforts to embed into French architecture forms of art that reflected on the strong Christian values that had shaped up and practiced in Rome (Kostof & Greg, 305). The demands and preferences of the French monasteries during the same epoch meshed into the artworks so that the resulting ambiance of France’s skyline gave the feel of the holistic lifestyle of the French, cutting through the life zones of her political culture, social life, religiosity, and aesthetics.
Interior features of the architecture
Clerestory windows were the most outstanding interior feature of this architecture, and had the effect of illuminating the interior of the building so that the entire expanse of other features was well highlighted. The Romanesque period represented the forces of cultural change that were at work in Western Europe. This was also a time when the Roman Empire had made significant endeavors to spread the reach of her cultural systems. It is because of this factor, especially, that the resulting architecture has been thought of as a major step in Rome’s cultural imperialist intentions.
The Benedictine monastery church that was located at Cluny in Burgundy was arguably one of the largest and grandest Romanesque artwork. The building was an artistic summation of France’s cultural life, and the varieties of its makers have been used in many scholarly works as important signifiers that give highlights on the historical processes that gave shape to the Romanesque values and ideologies. The large size of the building was an art show of solidarity and patriotism among the French. In a way, the shape and size of the emerging architectural works were quite often used as ways that represented the artworks as bastions of protectionism against the emerging tendencies of conquest from neighboring and distant civilizations.
The massive Benedictine monastery church was among the very first building to be covered with the stone vault. The building contained five aisles with another two transepts. Three was also a chevet, a network, and a narthex as other fundamental features that vibrated with the ideological rhythms of Romanesque architecture (Kostof & Greg, 317). The features of this building were later to become revolutionary in aspect, as concerns French architecture. They were widely aped by other churches throughout France.
Conclusion
The visual features of the crucifix and other biblical allusions were used together with the depictions of other life forms like people, emperors, and vegetation to give the interior decorations a form of realism that expressed the Romanesque hybrid art.
Work Cited
Kostof, Spiro, and Greg Castillo. A history of architecture: settings and rituals. Ed2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.