The Esthetics of the Middle Ages by Edgar De Bruyne (review)

294 Books different artists, such as Daumier, have examined social problems in the past. The Indignant Eye is that rarity in art books: a volume that is carefully researched, clearly written, immaculately conceived with regard to illustration layout and motivated by the author’s desire to present art from the standpoint of humanisticideas and social awareness. It is a book that can be read by scholarsin the field of graphicart withoutfeeling there are oversimplifications. Laymen, too, may want to see how great artists were involved in the pressing issues of their times. In summation, it is a majestic book that makes an important contribution toward understandingthe artist as socialcritic. The Estheticsof the MiddleAges. Edgar De Bruyne. Frederick Ungar, New York, 1969. 232 pp., $6.50. Reviewed by :Norman Narotzky* In this translation of the author’s own abridgement of his 3-volume work Etudes d’esthktiques mkdikvale, first published in Belgium in 1946, De Bruyne’s basic thesis is that the main characteristic of medieval estheticthought is not the originality of its ideas but the specialway in which esthetic ideas taken over from other sources were infused by the spirit of Christianity and thus transformed into somethingpeculiar to the age. The author begins by showing how the medieval thinkers found their sources in the Bible, the philosophers, technical handbooks and the Church Fathers. He then goes on to discuss the fundamental principles of the medieval esthetic system: symbolism,allegory and the cult of proportion and brilliance of color, and their various applications. In the section on Art, the medieval concept of both the artist and the work of art are presented, showing the omnipresent influence of religion. ‘There is no doubt that he (the artist) creates in the image of God: likethe DivineCreator, he visualizesthe form that is to be brought into being.’ ‘Thematerialwork of art is not necessarily a faithful copy of the visible form. ..but it is inevitably a representation of what the artist conceives in his soul.’ But, though the artist creates in the image of God, he is human ‘all too human. He is not God. He cannot create new substancesout of nothing: he can onlycompose new arrangements of objects already in existence.’ There are interesting concepts here that, despite their age, can still be thought provoking. For example, in the anarchic situation of today’s art scene,it might be instructiveto consider St. Thomas Aquinas’ idea that the artist’s goal is not merely to conceive a work of art but to actualizeit in matter. ‘The quality of the art, therefore, must be judged not on the basis of the poetic intentions,and especially not by the ethical or human intentions of the artist, but by the objective qualities of the work which he has succeededin creating ‘A work of art is adjudged excellent not in terms of the artist, but rather in terms of the work of art itself.’ Corcega 196, Barcelona11, Spain. Thisbook is denselypacked with informationand ideas. Abridgement has undoubtedly made it even more concentrated. It is not directed towards the layman,for he will find it heavy going, but rather to the specialist for whom it will be a rich source of material. Meaning in the Arts. Louis Arnaud Reid. George Allen and Unwin, London and Humanities Press, New York, 1969. 317 pp., E3.25. Reviewed by: James W. Davis* An essential accomplishment of the author is the development of a relatively comprehensive hypothesis applicable to all of the arts. It is condensed to the term ‘embodiment’for the purpose of providing a pivotal basisfor understandingaesthetic meaning. Reid approaches ‘meaning’in art as a sensation accessible only from our aesthetic understanding of it, stating that ‘...the focus upon the aesthetic aspect of art, the keeping of it constantly in mind, is not just a matter of temperamental interest, but is logically necessary if the talk is really to be about art’. There are two basic contentions contained withinthis:that aestheticsprovidesthe onlyverbally communicablemeaning of art (with this I disagree) and that discussionsabout art from other than the aesthetic view point (psychologicalor sociological) give information only about meaning (with this I agree). He feels that ‘meaning’springsfrom within an actual work and that...