Hi Danielle, Wow, what an absolutely Fascinating story, you've really played detective Well! I guess no one wanted, in 1972, to see and admit the truth that the professor was showing because it upset the 'myth'. I believe you and your colleague are right about exchanges and migrations fostering and bringing more innovations than the contrary.
We went up to the top of the double dome and I slowed the guide down taking photos of the different aspects one could see of the 'fish bone' placements of the bricks. I thought it was incredible. It was great to see further up a sort of workshop type area where there were molds for Lots of different angles and shapes of bricks. That helped to understand a bit how they worked on putting together different areas of their 'puzzle'.
I'll be watching for more on this subject as it comes along. You do a Super job explaining various wonderful things about Italy.
I live in France and need to Google how the dome of the Sacré Cœur in Paris was built ; I climbed up into its double sided dome once.
I’m glad you enjoyed it Kathy! It’s just incredible to me how no one acknowledged this discovery. When presented it wasn’t just an idea or theoretical — Sanpaolesi presented extensive proof and still…silence. That’s as fascinating to me as the innovation itself.
I don’t think Sanpaolesi’s 1972 article was totally overlooked. For example I found it in the bibliography of Eugenio Batitisti’s ‘s monograph on Brunelleschi. Not sure whether it’s cited in the text though.
I did PhD work in Italian Renaissance art and my Master‘s thesis has to do with the church of San Lorenzo in Florence. Sanpaolesi’s publications on Romanesque architecture in Florence were very useful to my thesis research. My former professor who specializes in Florentine architectural history probably would’ve known Sanpaolesi in his heyday. I should ask her about this. I certainly don’t remember her ever teaching it when I was an undergrad. This is really the most fascinating Florentine thing I’ve heard about in a long, long time.
You’ve made me curious so I looked in some of my old files. A review that I really liked of Saalmans ‘s book on the Cupola does criticize him for overlooking the Persian connections.
I really agree with you. The rejection of his work goes against a lot of how I guess we think about scholarship.
This attitude is one of the reasons I left academia, but considering the depth of Sanpaolesi’s experience and evidence, this is especially bad.
Ah, I'm sorry to hear that. Your thesis sounded interesting.
Hi Danielle, Wow, what an absolutely Fascinating story, you've really played detective Well! I guess no one wanted, in 1972, to see and admit the truth that the professor was showing because it upset the 'myth'. I believe you and your colleague are right about exchanges and migrations fostering and bringing more innovations than the contrary.
We went up to the top of the double dome and I slowed the guide down taking photos of the different aspects one could see of the 'fish bone' placements of the bricks. I thought it was incredible. It was great to see further up a sort of workshop type area where there were molds for Lots of different angles and shapes of bricks. That helped to understand a bit how they worked on putting together different areas of their 'puzzle'.
I'll be watching for more on this subject as it comes along. You do a Super job explaining various wonderful things about Italy.
I live in France and need to Google how the dome of the Sacré Cœur in Paris was built ; I climbed up into its double sided dome once.
I’m glad you enjoyed it Kathy! It’s just incredible to me how no one acknowledged this discovery. When presented it wasn’t just an idea or theoretical — Sanpaolesi presented extensive proof and still…silence. That’s as fascinating to me as the innovation itself.
I don’t think Sanpaolesi’s 1972 article was totally overlooked. For example I found it in the bibliography of Eugenio Batitisti’s ‘s monograph on Brunelleschi. Not sure whether it’s cited in the text though.
Howard Saalman's big monograph on the Duomo, published in 1980, didn't even mention it. And I believe he was there when the material was presented.
As I recall HS ignored a lot of inconvenient things.
Oooh what else?
Oh, it’s been too long for me to
remember specifics but I was advised to be wary of some of his conclusions, etc.
I did PhD work in Italian Renaissance art and my Master‘s thesis has to do with the church of San Lorenzo in Florence. Sanpaolesi’s publications on Romanesque architecture in Florence were very useful to my thesis research. My former professor who specializes in Florentine architectural history probably would’ve known Sanpaolesi in his heyday. I should ask her about this. I certainly don’t remember her ever teaching it when I was an undergrad. This is really the most fascinating Florentine thing I’ve heard about in a long, long time.
Yes, do ask, I would love to know she says!
You’ve made me curious so I looked in some of my old files. A review that I really liked of Saalmans ‘s book on the Cupola does criticize him for overlooking the Persian connections.
Alright that’s something